2001-03-27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT VOLLARO
CHRIS HUNSINGER
JOHN STROUGH
MEMBERS ABSENT
LARRY RINGER
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO
PASSARELLI AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST
SIDE BAY RD., OPPOSITE WALKER LN. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
AN 81 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION: 12 LOTS FOR
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USEE, 3 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND 1 LOT FOR
FUTURE USE. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-1992, UV 130-1992 BEAUTIFICATION
COMM.: 11/6/00, 3/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 81 +/- ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the audience’s benefit, normally we do Old Business first and then move
into New Business on the agenda. With that being said, Staff Notes, please.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Schermerhorn Properties,
Meeting Date: March 27, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 16-lot subdivision:
12 lots for Professional Offices, 3 lots for residential use, and one lot for future use.
Response review
The applicant has provided CT Male with a revised drawing and a response letter addressing CT
Male’s comments of March 8, 2001. The applicant’s letter of March 18, 2001 also provided a
response to the Water and Wastewater Department comments.
Staff Comments
Please refer to notes of March 20, 2001 for other review notes.”
(Staff Notes from 3/20/01)
“
Project Description
The applicant proposes a 16-lot subdivision: 12 lots for Professional Office use, 3 lots for residential
use, and one lot for future use. The plan has been reduced from 21 lots from sketch plan because of
the field location of the wetlands.
Study of preliminary plat (§ A183-10)
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
(1) Lot arrangement: The lots are arranged with the professional office parcels towards
Bay Road and residential parcels towards Meadowbrook Road.
(2) Location and design of streets: The application has been referred to the Highway
Department for review and comment.
(3) Topography: The property is fairly level; the parcels towards Bay Road are in the
316 to 304 foot elevation range.
(4) Water supply: The applicant proposes connecting to the municipal water supply.
The application has been referred to the Water Department for review and
comment.
(5) Sewage disposal: The applicant proposes to connect to a municipal sewer. The
application has been referred to the Sewer Department for review and comment
(6) Drainage: The application has been referred to CT Male for comment and review.
(7) Lot sizes: The professional office parcels exceed the minimum requirements for the
zone (MR-5). The zone requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet for residential and
10,000 square feet for non-residential. The lots exceed the 10,000 square foot
minimum for all 16 lots. The same applies for the residential parcels. The plans
should be revised to show the amount of developable area for lots containing
wetlands or other topographically restraints. Section A183-22 Density.
(8) Placement of utilities: The utility plan shows the location of the waterline, sewer
line, and catch basins.
(9) Future development: The site is being subdivided to support a mixture of uses on
the site. The development of the professional office and residential area is subject
to site plan review.
(10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood 9 of
the 1998 Land Use Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends this area include a
mixture of commercial, office, cultural and educational uses. In addition, the plan
recommends residential use if sewer service is provided. Neighborhood 9 page 3.
(11) State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has submitted a long
environmental assessment form
(12) Town Departments/Committees: The application has been referred to the
Highway Department, Water Department, and Wastewater Department. The
Beautification Committee requested that all the tree plantings be 3-inch caliper size.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The application submission includes the preliminary and final application. The final application
information is provided for informational purposes; the Board may choose to review only
preliminary information. The final application does not reference all of the notations required for
final plat review.
The preliminary plans addressed the following sketch plan comments:
??
A revised landscape plan that indicates the buffering plan is for the stream.
??
Identification of NYSDEC and Army Corp wetlands
??
The southern access point has been changed to right angles
??
The applicant has provided a Long Environmental Assessment form
Suggestions
The Planning Staff would recommend the drawings be revised prior to final review. The drawings
should address:
1. CT Male comments
2. Buildable area for each lot; density
3. Beautification comments
4. Highway comments
5. Water Department comments
6. Wastewater Department comments
7. Clearing/Vegetation removal plan
8. Phasing”
MRS. MOORE-And the only thing that I see as Staff comments for Preliminary, items such as,
under my suggestions in the last Staff Notes, under Buildable Area for each lot; density, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. For the record?
MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Rich Schermerhorn. We were here for conceptual, and it
was very well received by the Board. Since then, we’ve undergone a detailed engineering review, and
we believe that Tom has addressed the engineering issues, with the exception of whatever issues the
Board and the public may raise tonight. Perhaps we could just start out with Tom quickly doing an
overview of the proposal.
MR. NACE-Okay. The entire parcel is 80 some acres, 82 acres, something like that. It goes from
Bay Road across to Meadowbrook Road, just south of Bayberry and north of Cronin Golf Course.
The proposal before you now is for developing that into 16 lots, 15 of them to be developed for
either professional office use or residential use, and the remainder in the back left for some future
use. The lots, or the subdivision will be served by two road entrances onto Bay Road. They will
make a loop and the northern one of those roads will continue back to the middle part of the land
and will have future potential to connect on through to Meadowbrook Road. The proposal is that
the front, the kind of front 12 lots would be used for professional offices. Those are all, this is in the
MR-5 zone. Those are all within the 1,000 feet of Bay Road, and designated for available for
professional office use. If you’ll remember the concept, we had a little different road layout. We had
a cul de sac that came up into here, and we had much smaller lots along the front of this. We took a
real hard look at the Board’s suggestion and decreased the number of lots dramatically, increased the
size of those lots. So now that we’ve done that, we have five lots that actually have frontage on Bay
Road. However, we’ve taken pains to make sure that those are set up with our internal roads, so that
these will not have any driveways on Bay Road. These front lots will all access off of our proposed
road system. They’re much larger lots. We’ve gone through the actual developable area shown is a
building footprint available with the setbacks. We’ve gone through to make sure that each of the lots
are developable with a reasonable sized building, parking, etc., for professional office purposes. The
three lots in the back are in an area where they’ll probably be used for a multi family residential of
one sort or another, and of course any lot in here will be back before the Board for site plan review
when it comes time to develop those individual lots. We’re proposing that all of the lots be
connected to the municipal water and sewer. On the water side, there’s an existing 12 inch main on
Bay Road. We’ll simply loop a new main around back into that 12 inch. On the sewer side of things,
the land slopes from Bay Road down to Old Maid Brook, which runs through the property, and then
from the back there’s a high point about halfway back through the property, and that is relatively flat
and slopes back, in the front portion, slopes back to the Brook. Our sewer system will collect, have a
collection system that will come down by gravity along the Brook to a pump station. From here we
will pump up and either into the pump station proposed for Bay Bridge or into a common force
main with the Bay Bridge pump station. We are working with the Sewer Department now on trying
to firm up the details for exactly how that tie-in will be accomplished, but there’s a commitment
there that they will have that in place, in one way, shape or form, and we will coordinate with them to
make sure it all works together. Drainage, we’re collecting all the runoff from the roads and from the
lots which don’t have direct access to a discharge point along the stream, or back into the wetland
areas. We’re collecting that drainage in a closed system, bringing it down to three small detention
basins along the Brook, where it will be metered back out into the Brook, which is where it goes
now, at a rate no greater than what the present runoff is. That’s a quick rundown. I should mention,
as questions did come up during engineering review, about the location of the road access points.
The road system in the front part is dictated by a couple of things. One, and primarily, the primary
goal is to keep it so that all of these frontage lots on Bay Road have access for internal driveways, so
that the driveways on those lots do not have to come out on Bay Road. The other issues that are
driving that, well, that goal of having internal access makes this have two driveways. It’s because of
the stream and the wetland, it’s almost impossible to serve this with one driveway and get access to
all of the frontage land. There are two driveways on the opposite side of Bay Road. One is Walker
Lane and one is Baywood Drive. Our northern driveway is situated in between the two, at a distance
of a little over 100 feet from Baywood and a distance of a little over 250 feet from Walker. If you go
through your Town regulations, they require a minimum separation of driveways, opposing
driveways, of 125 feet, and most of the references that I could come up with come up with a safe
distance between the two of about 150 feet. So this is a fairly low volume driveway. This is a little
higher volume and we gave that a little bit of preference and situated so we had a little more
separation from Walker Lane, and then the southern driveway is, again, it’s over 300 feet from
Walker.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the distance from the upper drive to Walker?
MR. NACE-From this drive to Walker?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. NACE-253, I believe, is the exact number.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. NACE-That’s it.
MR. LAPPER-Only just to mention, in terms of the development itself, that the office park,
professional office park across the street, is either filled or has one lot left, and Rich has had a
number of serious inquiries so far on professional offices in the Bay Road corridor. It’s obviously a
good location for office park, and a lot of people are interested. So he’s very encouraged that he’ll be
able to get going pretty quickly on putting up some buildings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-Anything that you want to add?
RICH SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, I’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-I agree. It’s a good location. I mean, Bay Road is planned. It’s in the
Comprehensive Plan as an area for the location of office space, and even the proposed zoning,
rezoning that occurs, which seems likely, is for PO, which is Professional Office zoning which you
just mentioned, Jon, and it does allow for a day care center, Rich, and I think a day care center is a
good idea anyhow, with this proposed mixed use, I mean, with apartments in back and with the
offices. It seems like it’s an appropriate place. So I just want to make that note.
MR. LAPPER-John, on that point, just to be clear, because I don’t think we’ve discussed it with the
Planning Board. Because Rich has a serious inquiry from a day care operator, who’s got facilities in
the Capital District, we’ve gone to the Town Board separately and asked them to implement that
change now, and they have a public hearing scheduled for next week to, since that’s already in the
draft master plan and in the Comprehensive Plan, and there’s no sense, at least that we can tell, on
how quick that plan’s going to be voted on, we’ve asked them to separate that out, and to say that a
day care center would be a permitted use in office parks, and the Town Board was very favorable
about that and they scheduled that for a public hearing, and we’re hopeful that’s the first project that
we’ll be in with, well, maybe the first and second because there’s an office that would happen pretty
quickly, too, but we’re hopeful that we’ll have a day care center here.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I, for one, I think it’s a good use.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. STROUGH-My next point, when we go to architectural design.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we stay away from architectural design and just stick with subdivision
and related issues tonight. How’s that?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just went there as a statement of where I’d like to go with this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Baybrook, I think, could be a show piece development, okay, an example for
others, an aesthetic asset to the Town, but I think as one Planning Board member, I would like to see
it look comprehensive.
MR. LAPPER-With a theme.
MR. STROUGH-With a theme, you know, cohesive concept, shows it’s all one development, that it
would appear consistent in all the building styles, although the buildings don’t have to be the same,
but they would appear congruent, in other words, some of the architectural details would remain, so
it looks harmonious, almost village like. The color schemes don’t have to be the same but
coordinated, so that they look like they flow, and in harmony with one another. I know you’ve got
apartments planned. One thing we don’t know what we’re planning back there, but the offices and
the day care center that’s being proposed, just kind of, you know, look in harmony, look village like,
and I would also like to see something, when you do come before us, something that’s distinctive,
dynamic, appealing, you know, not, Richie, the 2 x 6 walls with trusses and throw up vinyl siding. I
know you probably plan on doing better than that anyway, but I, for one, don’t want to see
something like that. I’d like to see something, like I say, a showcase for the Town, not run of the
mill. The sewer line, I guess we’re coming along on that direction?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. LAPPER-We would expect that the approvals would be contingent upon the sewer approval,
but Bob can talk more about that than we can, but everything seems to be finally going nicely with
the Town, with the sewer district, and we would be applying, Tom would be applying to include this
in the sewer district.
MR. STROUGH-The utility plan, I guess you’ve worked out the electric and gas lines? I didn’t see
them on the plan.
MR. NACE-We normally don’t show, we’d show a corridor for them. They’re on the opposite side
of the road from the water, but typically NiMo is the one that dictates exactly where the crossings are
going to be and where services are going to be, etc., and they won’t do their design until the
subdivision is approved by the Town. So, typically, we don’t show exactly where the gas and electric
are on a subdivision, because we don’t know until the NiMo is done.
MR. STROUGH-Fair enough.
MR. NACE-But that will be done.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got that down. All right. It is currently MR-5 zoning, and that is Multi Family,
and there’s allowed for professional offices, Planned Unit Development, home occupation, school,
church, hospital, nursing, health care, medical. Traffic, I guess that’s been reviewed and approved in
a memo I just got. Is that correct?
MR. NACE-Yes, at the suggestion of your Town Engineer. We had been holding off on going to
Warren County until we knew where the utility crossing was going to be, to where the sewer crossing
was going to be, because that’s probably going to have to be a boring under the road, and the Town
Engineer suggested we at least go with the road cut proposal to the County, which we did, and
received an approval from them today on that location.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I didn’t see, myself, any problems with it. I don’t know why I’ve got
these notes, the subdivision application See J & K. I’ll find that. Well, I’ll come back to it. Some of
these notes I took quite a while ago.
MR. LAPPER-What I see for J & K is Proof of Service and Fees. So I’m probably looking at a
different list than you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I see not date and signed on Page Seven. Page Seven not dated or signed.
Underneath “fees”.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The signature page is signed, the next page, but I agree with you that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then I just have the subdivision process consists of three phases, Sketch,
Preliminary and Final, and this will be the Preliminary, I take it.
MR. LAPPER-We’re hoping to be in a position for the Board to grant Preliminary and Final tonight,
but certainly Preliminary first.
MR. STROUGH-Now, Tom, I did make a note. What kind of soils, do you know, offhand?
MR. NACE-Yes. The soils, the upper soils, are a loamy, fine, silty sand, underlain by clay at various
depths.
MR. STROUGH-Type D?
MR. NACE-Well, the surface soils are Type C, for drainage, they’re Type C, Group C.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, why don’t we go to the grading and drainage plan. Now,
currently, I think that’s the way it’s proposed, the roads are going to all drain into manhole
structures?
MR. NACE-Into catch basins, yes.
MR. STROUGH-And the catch basins now, what’s the sump capability of each of those catch
basins?
MR. NACE-It’s a standard one foot sump. You mean for siltation?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. NACE-One foot, but there are.
MR. STROUGH-Sedimentation?
MR. NACE-Yes, correct.
MR. STROUGH-So, Tom, would that be like a primary treatment?
MR. NACE-Well, actually, the primary, as far as treatment, the primary during construction, at least,
is siltation fences and other erosion control features above the catch basins.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I mean for stormwater runoff events.
MR. NACE-Once it’s developed, yes.
MR. STROUGH-That’s why I was asking about the sump. The sump is designed so that it’s going
to be capable of allowing the water to sit temporarily, so that the sand and sediment can settle out
before it continues on?
MR. NACE-Typically the real heavy stuff settles out in the catch basins. The finer stuff will settle
out down in the detention ponds.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So I see that’s about a foot?
MR. NACE-It is a foot, yes.
MR. STROUGH-So that would allow some treatment.
MR. NACE-That allows you the primary, the heavier sands and gravels, to settle out. Then the finer
silts, finer sediments will settle out in the detention pond.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then the detention pond is actually going to be our primary treatment.
MR. NACE-It’ll be part of the treatment.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, what I’m looking for is possibly a secondary treatment, but first of all,
before we go to that, Tom, there’s something I’m not aware of because I just couldn’t get on site to
see, and so you really need to explain to me. You know better than, the characteristics of this Old
Maid’s Brook.
MR. NACE-Okay. The characteristics?
MR. STROUGH-Is it a free flowing brook? Is it flowing year round?
MR. NACE-Yes. It’s a free flowing brook. It’s approximately, depending on where you are along
the stream, it’s three to five feet wide, one to three feet deep.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s a tributary to Halfway Brook?
MR. NACE-Eventually, yes. It flows down in the wetlands. It meanders around and changes
character a little bit, but it eventually outlets in Halfway Brook.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ve got it. This is upside down, but I got it this far, and then I lost it.
MR. NACE-Okay. In the wetlands, it meanders through those wetlands.
MR. STROUGH-The green space?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it meanders through those New York State DEC wetlands?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and it goes under the road, I assume, at the spots where you’ve indicated.
MR. NACE-Correct.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-Now, and that is a tributary to Halfway Brook, and that’s why I was wondering if
you considered at all a secondary treatment, such as a wetland that exists. I tried to look for them.
This is not the kind of weather you can get out and take a look. Because if there’s existing wetlands,
the stormwater could be directed to those, and then they can naturally flow into the stream, and the
wetlands, as we all know, act as a great filtration system.
MR. NACE-That’s correct. The lower wetlands on the Brook do that to a great extent.
MR. STROUGH-And I see on site we’ll be able to do a lot of that.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-When Richie comes back, but for the road drainage, so I only see really is the sand
will be able to filter out, but basically the water’s going to go directly into the stream, output into the
stream.
MR. NACE-Correct, which is where it goes now, okay. There’ll be enough sedimentation that takes
place to remove any road sands, and those are fairly heavy materials, okay.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know, but the other materials that come with it, you know, your phosphates,
nitrates, which, like I said, I’m going to try and keep as much of that in the future on site, but then
we’re using a black magic instead of road salt so that’s good.
MR. NACE-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-And so all we really have are, for potential contaminants in any significant way is
the sand.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So you don’t see any need for a secondary treatment?
MR. NACE-No. The stormwater drainage, along with the stream crossing, is also being reviewed by
DEC, okay. They have to issue stream crossing permits, okay. They had reviewed it when we did it
before, and they’re now reviewing it for this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s still pending, Tom?
MR. NACE-Yes, it is.
MR. LAPPER-That would also most likely be a condition of the Board, that DEC stream crossing
permit.
MR. STROUGH-You see, one thing, that one drainage site, there’s the existing farm pond. I’m just
wondering why you didn’t go into there. I mean, I can’t get on site with the weather the way it is.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-So, you’re going to have to explain this to me, if you don’t mind.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, the existing farm pond we thought was better left intact the way it is. It’s
just a very shallow, you know, maybe two feet deep farm pond, and it’s part of the wetland. It’s
further, deeper into the wetland buffer. So, we’re trying not to disturb that area.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, what I’ve seen in some of the things that I’ve studied, is, and some of the
other States are using is, using this as a secondary, they create ponds, to act as a secondary treatment
for the water, and then they’ll have certain plantings they’ll put around there, and things like that, and
then they’ll let it drain through the wetlands, or eventually into the stream, and by the time it comes
up the stream, it’s pretty clean.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-The reason why I’m worried about all this is not necessarily Rich’s project, but all
these projects that we see that are here and there along Halfway Brook. We’re seeing a lot of them,
and I’m just wondering what the cumulative effect is going to be, not only with the potential
contaminants going into Halfway Brook, but with stormwater surges, and I see this is based on a 25
year event, right?
MR. NACE-No. The stormwater retention/detention is based on a 50 year storm.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-The culvert sizing for the culverts, the road culverts themselves, are based on a 25 year
storm. That’s in accordance with your regulations.
MR. STROUGH-I read some of this stuff a long time ago. I’m just going from memory. So that is
designed for a 50 year?
MR. NACE-Yes, it is, and the detention ponds will provide a great deal of that treatment you’re
talking about, certainly much more than, you know, is received right now from the runoff from Bay
Road and other streets and roads that go into, directly into that Brook or to Halfway Brook.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So the way they’re designed right now is you take a 50 year storm event.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Which would be, if we take a look at the past 50 years, it would be the worst storm,
and this would be able to handle what we’ve seen in the last 50 years as the worst storm, for the most
part, 90%.
MR. NACE-On a 50 year design basis, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s good. Thank you for your patience, by the way.
MR. NACE-Sure. No problem.
MR. STROUGH-And I’ve mapped out the flows, and I’m looking to the future here, and I think a
lot of this can be worked out. That is an area of concern with the drainage from the roads directly
into Old Maid’s Brook. Now, I see the check dams occasionally, and we don’t need to get an
easement for those check dams?
MR. NACE-Those are temporary until the lots are developed. Once the lots are developed that
situation that the check dams are being used to control will disappear because of the lot grading.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that wasn’t in the literature so I didn’t know that.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-That’s why you’re here.
MR. NACE-Those were a response to one of your engineer’s comments.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. Yes, and I like the layout, too. It’s better than the last time. I did
my 75 foot setback and looked at where the driveways could go out on the roads. Everything
seemed to work out. So I thought this was much nicer.
MR. NACE-Well, you made us take a hard look at it, and we did.
MR. STROUGH-You came out with a better plan, in my mind.
MR. NACE-I think so.
MR. STROUGH-And also, another segment of your plan that I liked, Tom, was the rip rap overflow
spillway, which I believe is, you know, it’s just designed to be like a safety feature?
MR. NACE-Correct yes. There are 100 year storms and beyond.
MR. STROUGH-And I saw that and some of the other features that they consider contemporary
features. So, I liked seeing that. That was good. Okay, and I see your catch basin design. Now, the
concern I had about your catch basin design was the depth. With the ground water being, what,
about a foot and a half, two foot?
MR. NACE-It depends on where you are on the site. Anywhere from a foot and a half to, I think
there were some places with maybe three, three and a half.
MR. STROUGH-Now, in those areas where you’re proposing your catch dams, I don’t know what
the water table is.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. NACE-Are you saying the catch basins?
MR. STROUGH-Catch basins, yes. Excuse me, thank you.
MR. NACE-Basins, okay.
MR. STROUGH-So, I know that their efficiency can be reduced if you hit groundwater with them,
right?
MR. NACE-No, catch basins are closed. They’re not drywells. They’re closed structures.
MR. STROUGH-So am I looking at the wrong one? It has the geotextile fabric, and then you have
crushed stone or some (lost word) sand, and then you have your rip rap?
MR. NACE-You said check dams.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m off check dam. I’m on the.
MR. NACE-Okay. The overflow?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. The depth of that to groundwater.
MR. NACE-No. Those are in built up areas, okay, where the grading, they’re in built up areas where
the grading is built up to form these ponds, okay, so that the top elevation of those will be above the
existing grade, in most cases.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So that was just a concern that, you know, in some of the literature,
some people have put the catch basins in areas where the water table is right there and the efficiency
of them is greatly reduced, and this isn’t the case with that. This’ll be raised?
MR. NACE-You’re talking about the detention basins?
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, the detention basins will be, the bottom of those will definitely be above
groundwater.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the detention basins, am I just looking at the wrong thing? Are they
designed like this?
MR. NACE-No. This is a section through the overflow spillway. The detention basins are just a
depression, a fairly shallow, couple of foot deep depression, okay. They have rip rap from the inlet
to the outlet, okay, they have a rip rap channel through them.
MR. STROUGH-Is there going to be geotextile under that sand and then you put the rip rap under
it?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-Yes. There’s a typical rip rap.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we possibly maybe refocus here? I think some of the, the line that you’re
starting to ask is more related to our engineer, who’s here tonight and can address those concerns.
MR. STROUGH-He is?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, he is.
MR. STROUGH-Nobody told me.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re getting way off on the other end here, so let’s kind of bring it back
in to focus on general issues. Can we?
MR. STROUGH-Let’s ask the engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to get him. As soon as I go right down this membership, he’s the
next guy that’s going to talk, because he’s going to summarize.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-All right. So you’re taking notes of my concerns?
MR. EDWARDS-I will now, yes.
MR. STROUGH-It’s a little late. I’m almost done.
MR. EDWARDS-I’ve been listening, though. I’ve been listening to your comments.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I think we’ve got the stormwater situation pretty much under control.
All right. Why don’t I take a break and get reorganized and we’ll go on others.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I would agree with John. I think the revised plan is much better than the
preliminary that we had looked at awhile ago. I still had some questions, though, on traffic, and they
kind of boiled down to a couple of concerns. One, in one of the earlier letters from C.T. Male that
talked about the, perhaps the future need for some off site mitigation measures, and, you know, I
know they ended up signing off on the project, but it’s still something that, you know, down the
road, I would have concerns for, partly because of some of the other projects that are going on, as
well as this one specifically, and then the other concern I have is with the alignment of the roads, and
I appreciate your comments earlier about, you know, how you tried to lay them out so that they
would line up as they could with the drives on the western side of Bay Road. I guess my question
would be kind of specific, and I guess what I would consider maybe the worst case example, if a car
were to come out the northern most driveway of the proposed subdivision, turn north onto Bay, and
then turn left into Baywood, or, you know, vice versa, that sort of “Z” configuration, what kind of
concerns may be produced?
MR. NACE-Okay. Do you want me to go ahead and respond?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please.
MR. NACE-Okay. Your first question, what was your first question?
MR. HUNSINGER-About future off site mitigation.
MR. NACE-Okay, yes, off site mitigation. We don’t know exactly what the development of each lot
will bring with traffic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-I’ve done some preliminary numbers just based on areas and typical office
developments, and those are fairly conservative. Those, I got these numbers out of ITE, and I think
the total traffic maximum, the peak, out of this proposed subdivision, would be 157 cars an hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-Which when you look at Bay Road, is a relatively small percentage of the road capacity.
Bay Road’s an arterial, I guess you would call it a local arterial.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-And it’s got pretty good capacity to it. Your question regarding the offset, the 150 foot
from our northern driveway to Baywood Drive, we’re actually in good shape there because of the
way Bay Road is designed. It’s extra wide. It’s got those extra wide shoulders, and it can function in
tight situations as a left turn lane with a bypass around it on the side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-So there is room for traffic to go around, stop traffic. It’s not like a car stopped to take
a left hand turn into any of these roads, whether it’s Walker or Baywood or a southern bound car
coming into our proposed roads. There is room for through traffic to go around that car that’s
stacked, or cars waiting to make a turn.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I interject a thought here? Isn’t the easterly side of Bay Road a designated
bikeway?
MR. NACE-It is, but there’s extra, there’s width. There’s like a 10 foot shoulder and then the
bikeway. There’s an extra, extra space there, and if you’ve driven, you’ve all driven Bay Road. It’s
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
used as an avenue to go around, not a high speed through lane, but an avenue, if somebody’s
stopped, to slow down and gradually go around them. So it’s not going to stack traffic on Bay Road
while somebody’s waiting to make a left hand turn. There are references. Maybe I better pass these
out. I researched through the bible of traffic engineering, which is ASHTO Geometrics, and
ASHTO is silent on the issue of offsets for offsetting driveways, but I did find, and DOT design
manual is also silent on it. I did find a planning reference, which is a land planning book that I’ve
used before, is fairly good, and what that says is that, in fact, having an offset, if you’re coming out to
a major road, having an offset instead of a four way intersection, as long as that offset is, I think their
reference is 50 meters, which is approximately 150 feet, that it’s actually safer than the four way
intersection, and if you stop and think about it, I really believe that is true, because you don’t have
that, are you going to go first, or am I going to go first scenario of traffic on an unsignalized four
way, where you have through traffic on Bay but stop sign control on the two other roads. It really is
safer to have an offset, as long as the offset is substantial enough to get away from a direct pull out
accident, and this reference, at least, it’s determined that 150 meters is, your Code determines that it’s
125 feet. The answer’s there somewhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about the southern road, the distance from that to the Baybridge access
road?
MR. NACE-That’s just a dirt road now that’s, as far as I know, a construction access.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to interject in that for a minute. That road’s control points were set today
for a 50 foot wide road to be turned over to the Town because that road sets, the right of way of that
road sets our sewer line, our gravity feed line down. So that’s going to be a 50 foot wide road. That
was going to be something I wanted to come up with, and I will come up with later on, but that’s not
just going to be a dirt road.
MR. NACE-Okay. I don’t know. I’ll measure it and see what that is.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 100 feet.
MR. NACE-Centerline to Centerline?
MR. VOLLARO-Centerline to Centerline, maybe 105, depending on the ruler you use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, you’ve still got the floor.
MR. NACE-I come up with about 120 on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this a one to one hundred scale we’re working in? This is one inch to one
hundred feet?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only other sort of questions I had were pretty much related to the sewer,
specifically the memo from Mike Shaw. He raised a series of questions that I really didn’t see
addressed yet. I understand you’re working with the Town on some of those details
MR. NACE-Yes, I did address those. Unfortunately, Mike’s out of the office this week. So I don’t
think he got a response, although we did get a verbal response from Ralph VanDusen, who had
reviewed those with Mike. Were there any particular ones of his comments that you wanted me to
go over the response to?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, other than the fact that he hadn’t really signed off yet on the project, and it
sounded like there were still some issues to work out.
MR. NACE-Well, we’re coordinating with the two projects, and they’re both at different stages along
the way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-Ours and Baybridge, but, you know, we’re fully confident that that can be worked out
and we’ll go forward.
MR. LAPPER-Chris, we’re still going to have to do the map plan and report for this whole thing to
incorporate into the sewer.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So we would just think that that would be a condition of approval, that we’d have to
get the sewer approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then there were just a bunch of sort of minor comments. There was a
comment from the Beautification Committee about the labeling of the trees, that they should have
been three inches in caliper. There were a few minor kind of comments on the Staff Notes as well. I
guess kind of assumed that all those things would be addressed.
MR. LAPPER-We agree with all.
MR. NACE-Yes, we do agree with the Beautification comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You guys are doing a really good job here. I think that there’s a lot of details
that you seem to have taken into consideration, and right now, except for just lots 13, 14, or 14, 15,
and 16, they’re going to be for future use, right? We don’t really know what they’re going to be for
yet?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. NACE-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m assuming there’s one that’s not residential, and then the others, there’s
the 12 for the offices, right? Twelve for the professional park, and then we have 13, 14, and 15 that
are residential.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they’re how many acres?
MR. NACE-I don’t know to add them up. Thirteen is 1.84. Fourteen is 2.3, and Fifteen is 13.6.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because there’s a lot of wetlands around there.
MR. NACE-Yes, and this is envisioned, now, as a lot where a larger project, multi family project of
some sort, could take place.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was thinking that was residential, like.
MR. LAPPER-It would be like a senior project, potentially. Rich has been approached, but we don’t
have a contract. It could be a senior project.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then 16 is lots of acres.
MR. NACE-That’s future. We don’t know what.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and that would all be a separate, like we said earlier, you’d have to
come back for separate.
MR. NACE-Any of these we’ll be back here for site plan, for all of these.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but I mean, there’s, just going through all the preparation that all the
other engineering, you know, sewers and everything, I think you’ve really taken a lot of detail, done it
very thoroughly. So I’m okay right now. I just want to hear Bob’s comments on the roads, and he’ll
enlighten me a little bit more.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re turn.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Cathy, before I get to that, I just want to go through for just a quick minute,
on the project information that’s in our Part One of the EAF. There’s a couple of things in there
that I just want to, Number 17, where it says is this site served by existing public utilities, and you
have yes, but it’s not really served by a sewer at this point. It’s served by water, but there’s not a
sewer there yet. So I just want to make sure that the questions that are answered on here are correct.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. NACE-There is an existing sewer over on Meadowbrook, but the side we’re talking about, we’re
anticipating that there will be. Obviously, we’re not going forward without it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, actually, we’re not talking Meadowbrook Road yet here, on this application.
So I just thought that this particular form was talking to the application where we’re working with
now. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-This application could utilize Meadowbrook with a pump station and pump it the
other direction, if your sewer district didn’t happen, but we don’t anticipate that. So it’s still, it still
has access to the Meadowbrook.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re saying that if push comes to shove, you could use Meadowbrook?
That’s the bottom line is how you feel about that?
MR. NACE-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we talk about this 157 trips per hour, let me ask this. Will this road
to Meadowbrook be put in when this project goes forward? In other words, will you build the entire
road to Meadowbrook?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it won’t be.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, there’ve been discussions.
MR. VOLLARO-Because you know where I’m going with this. The 150 is only talking about this
section. Is that correct?
MR. NACE-This section that we’re in here for.
MR. VOLLARO-The section that we’re in here for.
MR. LAPPER-They may never be connected. I mean, this would be a Planning Board discussion,
and I’ve heard people in the Town say both, that it would be really helpful to have a connection
between Bay and Meadowbrook, somewhere in the middle of, you know, between Cronin and
Haviland, and other people saying, gee, that might put a lot of traffic onto Meadowbrook and maybe
it would be better not to. So we would look at that as something that the Board would instruct us
on, when Rich gets to that part of the development.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can look at that, but my point on this is that traffic could come from
Meadowbrook to get up to Bay Road. So that would essentially negate that 157 position.
MR. NACE-We don’t anticipate building that road, or we will not be building that road in this phase.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m trying to put the long glass on this. I’m trying to do some planning here
for a change, at this table.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I think what Jon is saying, that that planning would logically occur when we
come back for the development of Lot 16, okay, and at that point, we would be discussing the pros
or cons of making that connection, okay, and that, then we would have to evaluate how that would
impact both on Bay Road and Meadowbrook Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, in my mind, I’ve got to be real careful here in trying to eliminate
any segmentation in my own mind, that this doesn’t, this isn’t kind of a segmented project where we
look at this and then the next time we’re being forced to look at this because this is already in
position, and that’s how things happen, and I’m just trying to put some long range planning thought
into this project.
MR. NACE-Understood, but I don’t think we’re putting up any walls or road blocks where we
couldn’t, where we don’t have the opportunity, in the future, to make that decision. Okay. It’s not
like we’re closing the door anywhere. In fact, we’re leaving the door open.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. It would be up to us to consider that when we go down. On Page 4,
where we talk about, will the project use herbicides or pesticides, and it has no, and I think on future
lawns, I’m sure you’re going to use that. So it’s just a small point, and on the total water usage, and
this is going to be a big impact, in a sense. You’ve got 18,000 gallons here. This is going to be an
impact on your buy in to the Glens Falls Water Plant. How is that 18,000 gallons generated?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. NACE-Again, by the same way the traffic was, by looking at the size of buildings that could be
built on each of the lots, coming up with a total square footage, and then going to figure out basically
how many employees that would mean. DEC has two standards. You can go by square footage or
you can go by employees, but I like to check it both ways, because they’re not always consistent.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So from what you’re saying is you can justify that number by, if it had to be?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Because in the map plan report they’re going to ask you to do that.
MR. NACE-I will have to justify that. That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-We had to go through that as well. All right. Let me just get to the roads for a
second. As we discussed before that, we set the control points today, on the Baybridge access road,
and for the members of the Board here that are wondering what I’m talking about, I’m part of the
planning group in Baybridge to put the sewer in, and I work on that almost every day. So I have
some feeling for what’s going on in the sewer connections here. So we set the control points for a 50
foot wide road, and from our collection station, up on the top here where our pump station is now,
and where the gravity feed line will come down, right along the right-of-way that road. Now, what I
did do is I took a ride up, all the way up Bay Road, 1.2 miles from the Baybridge access road all the
way up to Haviland Road, and I counted eight curb cuts up there, all the way. Now that includes
Church of the King, which we’ll be talking about here in a little while. It includes the College
apartments, Canterbury Woods, the Baywood/Olde Coach Road, Walker Lane and Valente Road,
and then on the west side of Bay Road, I counted five, including the two curb cuts that this project is
proposing. In 1.2 miles, we’re talking 13 curb cuts on Bay Road. Very few of them lined up,
tangentially, and I’ve got some concerns about that much traffic getting packed into 1.2 miles of
road, with no traffic signal. What I had on mine, my thought was, this is just a thought, was because
this Baybridge access road, I believe, is going to be a fairly heavily trafficked road, I know, today, on
Walker Lane, and I go out that about 10 times a day, I do not try to go out when ACC is changing
classes. Making a left turn is very, very difficult. Extremely difficult. So people are going to start
coming down and using the Baybridge access road, and they’re going to have the same interface with
this road that you have road number two.
MR. NACE-What would be the difference between Walker Lane and the access road, as far as
getting out on Bay during that?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, because now what you have is you’ve got two non-tangentially associated
roads, one here and one here, separated by, I’ll give you your 120 feet, because I just checked it and
you’re right, center to center, but that’s awfully close.
MR. NACE-No, but I missed what you meant, that you said that the traffic from Bay Brook would
start using the access road instead of Walker Lane.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. I’m saying from Baybridge. From our community in Baybridge.
MR. NACE-I’m sorry, would use?
MR. VOLLARO-Will probably start to use this so called Baybridge access road.
MR. NACE-Instead of Walker Lane?
MR. VOLLARO-Instead of Walker Lane.
MR. NACE-For what reason?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s going to be newer, and it’s going to be easier to get, it’s set a little bit
further south, if people want to go down to Hannaford or something like that. That’s just my
thought, that that would happen.
MR. NACE-I think they would certainly use it for a right hand turn.
MR. VOLLARO-The other thing is, remember, Valente is going to build in these two lots that are
just north of the access road. He’s planning to do the same thing Rich is doing on these lots, and
that’s going to be a commercial operation in here. So that’s another group of buildings that are going
to go in there, that are going to put an additional load on this Baybridge access road. So, if you start
to look downstream at, to what’s going to happen, take a bird’s eye view of this and do a little
thinking, I really think that this road number two should come out, be tangential with the Baybridge
access road, and light put there, a traffic light. That’s my feeling on this, because if you look at
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
Baywood Drive, by the way, where the doctor’s offices are there, that’s a heavy input and heavy
output section onto Bay Road. A lot of traffic on Baywood. So, what I’m trying to get at is this 1.2
miles of road has got a lot of traffic and a lot of curb cuts on it, or will have.
MR. NACE-I don’t know that I necessarily agree with you about a lot of curb cuts.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m looking at 13 in a mile and a half.
MR. NACE-Yes, but that’s, actually, if you start looking at statistics, that’s relatively low. In fact,
that’s very low. If you start looking, for instance, at other high volume roads in the area, I wouldn’t
want to compare it to Route 9, but take a look at Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but because that’s bad, Tom, doesn’t mean we should make this that way.
MR. NACE-I agree. I agree, but it doesn’t, all that I’m saying is that the number of curb cuts in the
range that you’re talking about doesn’t necessarily have that much effect on the volume of the road,
okay, from a traffic generating standpoint. Once you get up to what Route 9 has, where there’s a
curb cut every 50 feet, it seems, then it does have an effect, obviously. One of the problems, Bob, in
lining up here, is the constriction that, the constraints of this site would really make it almost
impossible to get a road in and get that road turned, to come up and miss this wetland and the
wetland buffer area. It would make it very, very difficult to get a configuration of road in here with
your minimum radiuses in the Town, to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-How much of Lot Five is a wetland? I mean, I’ve got my road, my just rough
outline of that road running through Lot Five.
MR. NACE-How much of Lot Five is a wetland?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-It’s shown right on the map. The dark line is the wetland buffer, and the dashed line is
the wetland itself.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. NACE-But with the radius I just, I couldn’t get a road in there, and turn and come up to miss
that buffer up here, where we’re crossing the stream.
MR. VOLLARO-You say the radius would be too sharp on the western side of that?
MR. NACE-Correct, on the eastern side. Well, okay, the radius, by the time we get a tangent section
in and then make that radius, we’d be up into the wetland buffer, major time.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I saw the Warren County DPW’s letter to you, and I didn’t take that letter as
a final sign-off. There were an awful lot of caveat’s in there. I thought.
MR. NACE-Okay. I reviewed, I sat down with George VanDusen and reviewed this particular issue
in detail with him, as far as the offsets to the roads.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, did he realize that this Baybridge access road was going to be a 50 foot road
when you talked to him?
MR. NACE-I don’t know that he did that, okay. We looked primarily at the other two, to be frank
with you, but, you know, his review was whether or not they would allow the curb cuts where they
were proposed.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, his response was a preliminary response, and I didn’t take that letter from Mr.
VanDusen to be a final approval.
MR. NACE-No. The final approval won’t happen until we have an application that shows the
boring for the sewer as well, okay. They want to package that all into one.
MR. LAPPER-Tom went to see him because your engineer had suggested that he’d like to get input
from the County, and that’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I saw that. I saw that Mr. Edwards had put that in his memorandums. Twice
he mentioned the subject, in two separate responses, and that’s what really keyed me into this thing
as well, was Jim’s response to those questions.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. LAPPER-Bob, the road, that new road you’re putting in, that’s going to be a regular paved
road?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s going to be turned over to the Town by agreement, because that’s got
to serve all the development that Valente’s going to put in between Walker Lane and that access
road. That’s going to be all Cultural Professional, just like Rich is trying to do, the same sort of
operation. Once we got the sewer permission on Bay Road, this explosion’s going to take place. We
knew that. We want to make sure it takes place in a controlled fashion so we know what we’re
doing, and the thing doesn’t just grow like topsy. That’s why I’m so concerned about it.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we look at this as controlled, and the fact that for the 80 acres, or the acreage
we’re talking about, the front, that there are only two curb cuts, that we’re really doing what the
Planning Board wants us to do, in terms of limiting all those curb cuts, as the main design feature.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no, I think the fact that there’s no driveways going out is good. I mean,
think that, it’s just that these things not lining up tangentially, normally, I would like to see, and of
course I looked at what Tom just gave us here, and they’re talking 50 meters, which is 100, 150 feet,
roughly, but we’ve got this one a lot closer than 150. We’re looking at 120 between these two roads.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I play the Devil’s advocate here for a second?
MR. VOLLARO-Jump right in.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got a pending application sitting here in front of us. On the other side of
the street there’s no action taking place.
MR. VOLLARO-Don’t say that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Valente doesn’t have an application in front of the Town, does he?
MR. VOLLARO-No, he doesn’t not, but the access road is actually working, and the sewer line’s
going in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, here me out, first. That road is not a deeded Town road.
MR. VOLLARO-Not yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not yet.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s planned to be. It’s in the map plan and report that it will be.
MR. MAC EWAN-At the time you do your sewer project it will be? It will become a Town deeded
road?
MR. VOLLARO-It will have to be, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, he plans on paving it and making all the improvements to it before he turns it
over to the Town?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s where we’re at with that road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff know anything about this? I’m curious, because where I’m going with
this is that, if there’s no action taking place that I’m aware of on the other side of the road, that
there’s no application in progress or in front of the Town by Valente, should he, at any point in the
future, decide that he’s going to develop that land as you’re suggesting that he might, when he makes
his application, it would seem to me reasonable that he would be the one who would have to line up
his road with this application, because this one’s first on the table.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-No buts. I mean, he doesn’t have an application in front of us.
MR. VOLLARO-The way the map plan and report says is that our sewer line goes in the right of way
of this road. That’s the way the map plan report reads, and that’s the way our agreement with the
Town of Queensbury reads, the 16 page agreement.
MR. EDWARDS-Did you say that the easement is being laid out now for the sewer line?
MR. VOLLARO-We put the control points on the road today.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. EDWARDS-The meets and bounds will be part of that?
MR. VOLLARO-The meets and bounds. We put the control points at the outside of the right of
way of each side of the road so we know where we’re going to lay our gravity line. That’s all been
planned into, map plan and report’s got it that way.
MR. EDWARDS-So the map shows that and the legal description also indicates that alignment, as
described, the 50 foot right of way?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-That will be the legal limits of the road, then, it appears. When it becomes a road
then they’ll have to follow that same alignment of that road.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-If they chose to put a road in different location, and they’ve developed this
proposed subdivision on the other side of Bay Road, and the Planning Board wants them to align
with this now existing subdivision, let’s hypothetically say. At that point, can’t they just extend the
sewer, so that it ties into where it’s going to tie in, according to what the map plan report says?
MR. EDWARDS-They could amend it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could, but the way the map plan and report has it now, and the way we’re
doing it, the pump station is going to lay roughly opposite road number two. We’re putting a pump
station right there, because that spot happens to be the low spot on Bay Road, and that’s where our
gravity line’s going to go into, into that pump station right there. So, we couldn’t bring a road out
opposite this road because the pump station’s going to be almost right smack in the middle.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the reason why you can’t extend your road down 120 feet to be
across?
MR. LAPPER-Because of the wetland.
MR. NACE-Because of the wetland.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you don’t have wetlands delineated on this plan I’m looking at, S-4.
MR. NACE-Yes, we do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I see the limits over here. Where are the limits here?
MR. NACE-Right here, and this is the buffer right here. So, the problem is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why aren’t they denoted, then?
MR. NACE-They are. You just have to follow, here.
MR. MAC EWAN-That line right there is different than that line right there.
MR. NACE-That line right here is the buffer, okay. This is our no disturbance. Our problem is by
the time we come in here, and now we’ve got to turn, not just to angle like this, but we’ve got to turn
almost 90 degrees. By the time we get that turned in, we’re back over into the wetland over here.
MR. VOLLARO-Why couldn’t you do this, just come around like that?
MR. NACE-There’s no room to get those curves. We need this much, because you want to come
off of the road at 90 degrees. Okay, and you want to come back 100 feet before you even start to
turn the road, and when you turn it. The problem being we have to have 100 feet before we start the
curve, and by the time we get the curve back around, we’re back into here. Okay. It just doesn’t
work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I just have a question, following up on what the Chairman’s asking. Bob, are you so
far along that you couldn’t move your road 120 feet, in terms of the location of the pump station,
since none of that’s been built yet? If you really want the roads to line up, is that a possibility?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that road’s already, you know how that road got to where it is is because it
lined up with Passarelli’s original design. That’s how that access road got laid in there.
MR. NACE-No. I hate to contradict, but I did the original design, and our southern entrance has
moved maybe five or ten feet in order to bring it out. Before it was at a little bit of askew, and based
on one of the engineering comments we brought it out 90 degrees, and that moved it a couple of
feet, but that’s all it has moved.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. According to Dan Valente, the reason the road is where it is is because it
was to match up with the Guido Passarelli road on the other side of Bay Road, but if you say no, it’s
no. I don’t have any good information to refute that. As far as I’m concerned, if it goes this way, it
goes this way, but I’d certainly like to be able to sit with Bill Remington and his people a little bit and
discuss this, in a workshop or whatever, because I just don’t think this is going to work, not without
a lot of congestion on that road, a lot of traffic turns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else now. No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-It’s my assumption you’re selling these lots, correct? They will be sold and
developed.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. Yes.
MR. METIVIER-And who’s going to maintain the roads? Are they going to be designated to the
Town?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. It’ll be a Town road.
MR. METIVIER-All right. So, all right, and I had concerns about the road going over to
Meadowbrook, but you’re saying that that might never happen. It’s just on the map as it exists now.
MR. LAPPER-Just as a possibility. You’ll tell us.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. This is, you had stated this has been your stormwater management, a 50
year storm. This isn’t a floodplain here, is it?
MR. NACE-No, it is not.
MR. METIVIER-None of the area is?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. METIVIER-And how much fill do you think you may need? I mean, it’s relatively flat land.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. METIVIER-Do you foresee bringing in a lot of fill or just in some areas?
MR. NACE-There is fill where the northernmost road goes over the stream. I think there’s probably
five or six feet of fill. There’s a little less where the southern road goes over the stream, and some of
those lots, the lots on Bay Road are going to need a reasonable amount of fill, simply because the
land slopes away the way it does now, but, other than that, no. The rest of it, if you’ve walked the
property, once you cross the stream, it rises up fairly high, and it’s nice.
MR. METIVIER-Now, since it rises up, will you almost level it or just keep it high?
MR. NACE-No. Other than in the road, the road, when it gets back to that back piece of land is
right about grade, okay, and the front, it’s filled where it goes across the stream, but, no, we’re not
planning on grading the whole thing off.
MR. METIVIER-So you’re not going to cut in the back to bring it to the front?
MR. NACE-No. Anything we use in the front will be imported material.
MR. METIVIER-Rich, do you plan on building here or, how is that going to work? Will you just sell
off the lots and they have the choice?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I will sell the lots off individually, you know, if people want to purchase
them. I do have a potential sale on one now where I’m actually going to build the building, and then
they’re going to, you know, retain the ownership of the lot and the building after. I hope to build
them all, but I’m not going to limit myself from selling a lot if someone wants to buy a lot.
MR. METIVIER-And obviously, without getting into too much detail, what are the types of offices
do you have in mind, or have approached you? I mean, you said you had a day care facility.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, some of the people that have approached me, two of which have
been doctors, and I have another person who is a lawyer, but, you know, these are just, I haven’t
advertised anything. It’s just people that have heard from workshops, and, you know, people talking,
but it’s mainly been those type of people. The day care was kind of a rare situation. That came to
me and I was actually working with the people over two years ago, but I definitely see it as being a
Cultural Professional lot.
MR. METIVIER-And it does fit in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-What makes this project different from when it was originally approved with
Guido?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-With Passarelli?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-He actually went for a variance to put single families on the 82 acres. The
land, I’m developing it, is exactly as it’s written in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the new
proposed plan. The only thing different is we have a new Board now. We made the lots bigger, and
I’m not proposing any single families.
MR. METIVIER-And my only other concern is the sewer, but we’ll eventually get to that, I would
assume, one way or another. That’s really, I was mostly concerned about the maintenance, but if the
Town’s going to be designated, and that’s really it. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, have you got anything you want to add to this mix?
MS. RADNER-I’m sorry, did you ask me?
MR. MAC EWAN-Either one of you.
MS. RADNER-I thought you, I have nothing to add. You’re doing fine.
MR. EDWARDS-No. Some really good comments came from the Planning Board tonight. I think
we did a careful review of the project with Tom, and through a series of phone calls and memos and
what not, I think we feel comfortable where the project is at right now, as far as the alignments, the
grading, the drainage and the roads. I mean, the roads probably could be better, Bob, as far as how
they’re aligned. I think, I looked at that very carefully, too, as far as DOT, County concerns, and like
I said, DOT and ASHTO really have no hard guidelines as to how to line up roads. I think it’s
common sense that if a road is less than 100 feet offset from one another, there’s going to be
problems with conflicts going in and out of those driveways. There’s no question about that. So is
120 feet the best scenario? Probably not, but I think it’s awfully close to your Code, 125 feet, and it’s
probably the best compromise, in this case. As far as the signal warrant is concerned, I think you
mentioned that Baybridge, possibly a signal Baybridge or something is kind of off the.
MR. VOLLARO-A signal where the access road is, if there was a way of bringing road number two
out, tangentially, to the Baybridge road, and then having a signal at that point might certainly help the
traffic flow up there because.
MR. EDWARDS-It’s hard to gauge that or not, if it would help traffic flow on Bay Road or not. For
sure, there’s a signal at ACC now, warranted by Bay Road traffic, and also the side road traffic, which
is the south entrance to ACC. With so much peak hour traffic coming out of ACC, that’s, it’s really
warranted during those morning/afternoon peak hours. I think it would take a lot of traffic on those
side roads to hit that warrant, though, for a signal at Baybridge and Bay.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you think there would be any benefit at all to striping the Bay Road, in other
words, with a turning lane in the middle?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. EDWARDS-I’m a fan of that for sure. Yes, I’d mentioned that in my first letter, I think, that
the County should take a hard look at the future of Bay Road and how it’s striped, definitely. There’s
an awful lot of width out there, with some minor paving, you know, paving improvements and
striping and channelization. With the increased number of curb cuts, it will definitely help
ingress/egress, these new developments for sure.
MR. VOLLARO-It probably ought to be mentioned to Remington and company, I would think.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes, I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. EDWARDS-That’s all I really had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura? Quickly, did you want to do a follow up?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. If I could, while he’s talking, could I, what’s your opinion of like secondary,
are you familiar with this area?
MR. EDWARDS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And Halfway Brook?
MR. EDWARDS-I play golf out there, Bay Meadows, once in a while.
MR. STROUGH-So you know all the efforts we’ve tried to make in the past to, and all the
development, and we’re worried about the cumulative effects on Halfway Brook. What’s your
thoughts on a secondary stormwater treatment like wet ponds, sand filters, wetlands, either natural or
created?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, I think the detention basins inherently provide a nice filtration system for
stormwater, and eventually those detention basins flow into wetlands, which obviously are a natural
buffer as well, barrier, and a trap for sedimentation.
MR. STROUGH-But in this case, the stormwater is basically going to the, it’s going to the spillways,
and then it goes directly into Old Maid’s Brook, which is a tributary to Halfway Brook.
MR. LAPPER-Then it goes into the wetland.
MR. STROUGH-Halfway Brook?
MR. LAPPER-No. Before it gets to, Old Maid Brook goes into a wetland before it goes into
Halfway Brook.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I don’t have the advantage of seeing that, but I guess that’s what you
were trying to express before, Tom.
MR. NACE-Exactly. It goes down and meanders, sort of looses itself in that. That’s why it’s not
mapped exactly where it reaches the wetland.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s perfect, and that’s perfect. Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-To address your comment about the sumps inside the catch basins.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-That works great for a couple of years, those sumps do, until they fill up with the
sediment. I don’t think they’re the best designed sediment trap in the world, but it’s something that’s
effective for those first few years that they’re installed. They’re hard to maintain because they have
to go up there and basically vacuum that material up occasionally.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we do have a (lost words) that.
MR. NACE-Actually, the Town of Queensbury does a fairly good job of that.
MR. EDWARDS-They do? Great. One of the few, then.
MR. STROUGH-We have a maintenance program for that, but it does bring me to the attention.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of our fleet of over 65 vehicles.
MR. STROUGH-Now, Tom, what kind of maintenance will this rip rap overflow spillway need?
MR. NACE-It, in itself, and the overflow spillway will probably need none. Occasionally, the rip rap
channel from the inlet in the detention ponds over to the outlet, occasionally that’s going, you know,
over a period of years, that may fill up with some sand and have to be cleaned out, but that would be
the only.
MR. STROUGH-Now, that would be the property owner’s maintenance?
MR. NACE-No, that’s the Town, it’s all Town drainage system.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s why you have the easement there?
MR. NACE-That’s why you have the easements.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that makes sense. Okay. Well, good, everything’s working out as far
as the stormwater. One other thing, now your catch basins, okay, we start at 312 feet. Now what
kind of depth is it before we get to the drainage pipe? Catch basin five and six are connected to,
what, seven and eight? It’s kind of lost in the, do you know where I am, Tom?
MR. NACE-No, but I’ll go look.
MR. STROUGH-Do you see where that Catch basin five, Catch basin six?
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Three hundred and twelve feet.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the rim of the overflow is 308. So we’ve got a four foot drop. I’m
assuming that’s enough, but with the catch basin, how far down is the pipe in the catch basin?
MR. NACE-Typically, the pipe’s anywhere around two and a half to three and a half feet or deeper,
but, yes, those are worked out on the profile sheet, all the elevations down into the detention pond.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, while you’re right here, now, is that mandatory that that filter fabric
be a Class C?
MR. NACE-I’d have to look at exactly what it is you’re.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just wondered if there was like inferior geotextile.
MR. NACE-Class C doesn’t necessarily mean it’s inferior or, just depending on which one it is, it
speaks to what it’s intended to do.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, anyhow, I found out, Laura, why I made the notes of J & K, is
we’ve got to change that and update them. “J” refers to, “the applicant shall prove”, we’ve changed
that, right, that he’s notified the neighbors?
MRS. MOORE-It’s still in our Code that the applicant notify neighbors. I know, in the near future,
we’re proposing that the Town of Queensbury notify neighbors.
MR. NACE-I believe the Town Board passed that resolution the other night.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, they did, and the Fee Schedule they changed, too. So, J & K have to be
updated. That’s all.
MRS. MOORE-That’s all you wanted to know? All right, thanks.
MR. STROUGH-And, okay. Just another thing is just a note to myself. I just wondered if we
should start doing down stream analysis, and doing some Halfway Brook water quality monitoring.
MRS. MOORE-I can interject with that, that there already is a Halfway Brook water quality
monitoring project that goes on.
MR. STROUGH-Is that the Environmental Committee?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MRS. MOORE-No. It’s done at the Warren County Soil and Water Service, and at a later date, I can
inform you of what that information is.
MR. STROUGH-So there is a monitoring program? Okay, and I assume that the catch basins are
going to be graded?
MR. NACE-Yes. It will be the standard Queensbury (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-I’m done.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a follow up question, since our engineer is here. Getting back to
alignment of Baybridge access road and road number two, is it your opinion that the 120 or the 125
feet, it appears they may be, would be an acceptable situation?
MR. EDWARDS-I think 120 and 125 is more semantics. So I think that is, it meets the intent of the
Code, which is to avoid that close offsetting intersection problem. So, yes, I will go along with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-You had said less than 100 would potentially create problems.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. I’ve seen them, I guess, 100 feet or less seem to cause the biggest problems
with indecision’s as to who has the right of way and especially on a road like Bay Road when the gap
time is at a premium, during rush hours, and you’re both trying to head in the same direction, one
person pulls out first, the next person doesn’t see that person pull out and they pull out at the same
time, there’s a big conflict right there. With 125 feet, it lessens the degree of that conflict at least, so
you could at least react quicker to that person pulling out in front of you. So, is it ideal? Again, no,
it’s not ideal, but it’s, I think it’s very close to meeting the Code, and I think it’s acceptable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members, Staff? Applicant? We have a public
hearing scheduled tonight for this application. Does anyone want to come up and address the
Planning Board regarding this application? You’re welcome to do so. I’d just ask you to come up
and identify yourself, name and address, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHARLES JARVIS
MR. JARVIS-Good evening. My name is Charles Jarvis. I live at 19 Bayberry Drive. I am one of
several homeowners whose property abuts the northern perimeter of this property in question. We
are all vitally concerned as to what type of use is going to be made of the property adjacent to our
property, and what value or what effect that’s going to have on our real estate values. It doesn’t look,
if I’m interpreting this correctly, that we’re going to have multiple dwelling units backed up to our
property, which is certainly going to have a very detrimental effect on the value of our property. I’m
sure it may not have any bearing on it, but when this project was previously proposed by Guido, we
were given the assurance that there would, first of all, be a substantial green buffer zone between our
property and whatever they put in there. Secondly, he agreed, and then again I assume that this is a
whole new ballgame, but he agreed to put in some single family homes next to us, and gradually
move or change the type of dwellings as they went toward Meadowbrook Road. I would like to
think that something could be done to protect the value of our property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where did you say your property was now, Mr. Jarvis?
MR. JARVIS-It’s on 19 Bayberry Drive, which is north, our backyard borders the north perimeter of
this property here in question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Be advised tonight is only a subdivision, and it’s a subdivision of the
property. As each lot gets developed, it would require site plan review, so that you would have input
at that time. Any lot that’s closest to your parcel, you’d have an opportunity to voice your concerns
on it. So whatever we do tonight, as far as this application, doesn’t necessarily dictate what kind of
buildings or projects are going to be on the site in the future. Each one will individually be required
to have site plan review. So this is only one step of numerous steps to take place.
MR. JARVIS-Do I understand that the property, or the lots that are designed or quoted in this
particular application, don’t they come behind my property?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they do.
MR. JARVIS-But there’s no stipulation as to what it’s going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only action that this Board is undertaking tonight is the consideration of a
subdivision of land only, creating of lots, not what goes on the lots, but only creation of the lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-This development is in an MR-5 zone. The definition of MR-5 is Multifamily
Residential. If Mr. Schermerhorn in some way, somehow, decides that he wants to put any single
family homes back there, to satisfy your requirements, and I understand your requirements, he’s
going to have to get a zone variance to do that. So I think you should understand that. That’s not a
given that when we start reviewing the building on those lots that there’s going to be single family
homes there without Mr. Schermerhorn going for a variance on those houses. So, I think that you
should keep that in mind. Right now, he cannot build single family homes on this subdivision
without a variance to the Code.
MR. JARVIS-I think that’s the very point that concerns us.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I just wanted to bring it out so that you understood that it wasn’t a
given he could get single family houses.
MR. JARVIS-I do. I understand that. How about the buffer zone?
MR. VOLLARO-The buffer zones are defined. I mean, between zones, the Code defines the buffer.
I think if we have a zone change here between your zone and this zone, it would be, I think, a 50
foot buffer. Is that right, Mr. Chairman, we’d be looking at 50 feet, or not, or no buffer at all?
MR. MAC EWAN-Buffer zones only in between.
MR. VOLLARO-Between commercial and residential?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There’s no 50 foot buffer on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-But also, Mr. Jarvis, please keep in mind that as each, if this project was to be
approved for its subdivision, over the course of the next couple of meetings, and the applicant came
back with individual applications for site plan, on each one of these lots, which he would be required
to do, we would take each lot on a single, individual basis, and determine, through our review
process, what would be the best course of action to protect not only the existing neighborhood
behind it, but aesthetically and the most proper use for that particular piece of land. That’s what the
process is all about.
MR. JARVIS-I guess I have trouble understanding that, in terms of the fact that there’s any option
from this point on. Once we approve this, or it is approved, the lots are designed for multiple use,
and Mr. Schermerhorn himself said that was going to be the purpose of it, and I understand, also,
that the zoning provides for that. So I really don’t see any out for ourselves. I guess we’re just stuck.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t think I’d take that position. Not at all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because, may I say something?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Jarvis, in site plan review, when you come back and you express those
concerns, we’ll mitigate any of those problems by saying, okay, we’re going to have to have a buffer
cap. We might have to put in extra trees. We might have to make the setbacks a little bit different.
Maybe the size of the building might not be as big as originally proposed. So all those things would
be taken into consideration. So, it doesn’t mean that it would just be plop, that’s it. We would take
all the concerns that you have to make that site more viable and more pleasing for the people that
have to live around it.
MR. JARVIS-May I ask what the size of those lots are?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re big lots.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-They vary in size. I’d be more than happy to give you my map and you can take
it with you. Do you have one with the lot sizes on it, Bob?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’ve been looking for one with the lot sizes on it, and I can’t find it.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about, John, if we do this. When I get the applicants to come back up here,
I’ll have Mr. Nace go up there and point to those lots and I’ll have him indicate to you the size.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Or you can take my map and you can have it.
MR. JARVIS-I guess I’m concerned, also, that once this road is put in there, and those lots are
designated, there’s probably, my guess is there’s not enough room for a buffer zone, which is not
going to be even a consideration at that point in time. The other thing, too, is what size buildings are
going to go in here? Are they going to be like the Army barracks that are up on the corner over
here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Like I said, Mr. Jarvis, that’s all addressed at site plan review, provided this
portion of it gets its approvals.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. See, it’s not just going to happen, believe me.
MR. JARVIS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else?
DOUG COON
MR. COON-Good evening. I’m Doug Coon. I also live on Bayberry Drive. I have 16 acres at the
end of it. My property borders on Meadowbrook, and I just have a couple of questions. I’m just
unclear of a couple of things. The original pump station on Meadowbrook Road that was existing,
it’s been existing since Gary Bowen put it up. The newest development that Rich put in does tie into
that pump station. I guess my concern about that station, it has nothing to do with Mr.
Schermerhorn really, is that it’s pretty noisy. It’s a noisy, I brought this up before. It’s a noisy
station, especially on Fridays, when I guess their grinding pumps start to go. I can hear that. I’m
well away from Meadowbrook, but I can hear that inside the house, and I’m sure Rich has heard it
too, with the apartment that he’s put up. I didn’t know if any of this Board had addressed that
problem. It’s been brought up before. I didn’t know if there’s anything that’s on the works,
something being done about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That pump station is not an issue that is under the review of this Board. I would
encourage you to approach the Town Board, more importantly your Ward representative, who I
believe is Mr. Turner, and make him aware of what the problems are that you’re experiencing over
there. I’m not really sure what can be done, if anything can be done, but that would be the Board,
and that would be the representative that you need to approach to try to resolve that.
MR. COON-Okay, and the pump station that’s going to be proposed on this property, I’m not
exactly sure. I couldn’t see from the back when Mr. Nace was pointing it out. I’m not exactly sure
where that would be located. Is that going to be something that’s going to have some noise
associated with that, or is that more of a gravity fed pump station? I’m guessing that it’s going to be
pumping upwards to your proposed station as well.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s the current plan.
MR. COON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You want to know, is this new proposed pump station similar to the existing
noisy one on Meadowbrook.
MR. COON-Exactly, and the location of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ll get some information for you.
MR. COON-Okay, and then the last thing is, I guess I was the closest neighbor to the apartments
that are right now up in Meadowbrook, and I think the second or third phase is going on, and that
hasn’t been a problem. There’s just one thing I’m thinking of, from a development standpoint. I live
in this development with my neighbors, and I was just hoping, maybe requesting that, if he does get
approval and goes forward, right next to the neighborhood, that perhaps he could start some of his
work a little bit later. There were many times that machinery and the back hoes and reversing,
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
they’re starting at six a.m., and I’m just wondering if that can be backed up a little bit. It really
doesn’t bother me that much because I’m up, but I know the neighborhood, that Bayberry Drive has
a lot of retirees in it, and I think that would be probably a touch too early, if that was going to take
place. Those are my only questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. COON-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Contractors love to start machinery early in the morning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, do you want to come back up? Before you sit down, Tom, could I
just ask you to go up and just go over the lot sizes very quickly for Mr. Jarvis?
MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. The lots adjacent to your subdivision, there’s really just one that we’re
talking about, Lot 13, and that’s 1.84 acres, okay. Your subdivision is up in this area right here. I
think probably right opposite this lot line is Mr. Hughes’ garage. So the rest of your, are back behind
this lot that’s 1.8 acres.
MR. MAC EWAN-Proposed pump station, what do you know about it?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Talking about the pump station on Meadowbrook Road. My rental office
is located in the building that’s closest to Meadowbrook, and oftentimes, when I moved in there two
months ago I kept hearing the loud noise that Mr. Coon kept talking about, and what it is, I don’t
believe it’s the pumps. It’s the generator that I believe they start up or surge at certain times.
MR. NACE-That’s correct. It’s, the pumps themselves, it’s a submersible pump station. So the
pumps and the motors are underwater, and are really noiseless. Unless you’re standing right on top
of the station, you would not hear the pumps running. What’s being referred to as an emergency
generator, it’s on an automatic duty cycle to exercise it, so that the motor for the generator is kept in
good shape, and I imagine they exercise it once a week, probably on Friday afternoon, but our new
pump station, I’ve been talking to Mike Shaw, probably would not have an automatic generator or an
electrical generator of the size that would require normal exercising. It would probably have a
portable generator that’s hauled in to fire it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Board members or Staff?
MR. VOLLARO-I have just a comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to, this might not even have anything to do with this. You’re talking
about pump stations. We were up to Warrensburg and looked at their rough pump above ground
pump stations there, their so-called T 3’s.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I was impressed with the design because all the maintenance in that station is
done above ground. We maybe leaning toward that kind of an above ground pump station, and we
really ought to get together, separate from this community here, and talk about that.
MR. NACE-I think as soon as Mike Shaw is back, we all ought to sit down. There may even be an
opportunity here we could combine the two pump stations into one. So, I think that, yes, we
definitely need to explore all the avenues and get it nailed.
MR. VOLLARO-We can discuss it on the phone or whatever. Thanks. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. I
don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. The Long Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ready?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “IMPACT ON LAND Will the proposed action result in a physical
change to the project site?”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s a subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. Say the question.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project
site?” All right. Some examples would be, would you like me to give you some examples?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, construction on land where
the depth to water table is less than three feet, paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles,
construction where bedrock is exposed, construction that will continue for more than a year,
excavation for mining.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Reread the question then, would you, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. If you’re going to say yes, then you need to provide, identify one of the
examples or list an other impact, and then you need to tell me whether it’s a column one, two or
three.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What would that change be?
MR. MAC EWAN-As I understand there will be two potentials, and in my mind they’re both very
small impacts. One is depth to groundwater, and in some cases the bedrock is above the surface
there, isn’t it, in that part of Bay Road?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s just the groundwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just the groundwater?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, is that small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then can it be mitigated?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So are you selecting the bulleted item construction on land where the depth to water
table is less than three feet?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s what we’re selecting.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected
under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s a DEC flagged wetlands, and you have to get a DEC stream crossing
permit. So the answer is yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can it be mitigated?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?” Well, I can give you some examples. They’re here.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, without even giving any examples, it would because they’re going to create
a roadway in there, which is going to alter the course of groundwater.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But does that mean it’s going to make it make more groundwater? The
quality.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s going to alter its course. It’s not going to make any more. What is it is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not going to make any quality, or change the quality or quantity.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That was no, Laura. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or
patterns or surface water runoff?”
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one I wanted, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the one, okay. Would it change flood water flows? Would it cause
substantial erosion, incompatible with existing drainage patterns, allow development in a designated
floodway or what else?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the change, the impact on the parcel is going to be the fact that it alters
natural drainage flows, but through the mitigation of the project, it’ll alleviate the problem, by the
redesigning of it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That sounds good. Okay. The engineer’s nodding his head.
MR. VOLLARO-The basic design flows are not going to be. You’ve designed that so it’s pretty
much in keeping with basic design flows, as I saw them.
MR. NACE-The existing drainage patterns are maintained.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I thought that was the case.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, let’s see.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say no.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And Bob says yes.
MR. VOLLARO-This is not exactly a postage stamp development. It’s pretty large.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, for example, the permanent population of the City or Town in which
the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will
increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will it conflict with officially adopted plans or goals?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it goes with the plans and goals.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s in the Comprehensive Land Use. Will it cause a change in the density of
land use?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-For that site.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Cause a change in the density of land use.
MR. MAC EWAN-On that parcel, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and how can that be mitigated?
MR. MAC EWAN-It can’t be. Whenever you develop, the density is going to increase.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you can say that on every SEQRA that we do. Maybe we’re interpreting
it too strictly.
MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t have to be mitigated if it’s small to moderate.
MS. RADNER-It’s not going to change it on every SEQRA. It’s only going to change it on
SEQRA’s for subdivisions. There’s a lot of other SEQRA’s you do.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. I guess I should have qualified my. All right, so if it’s small to
moderate, we don’t have to have a mitigation measure.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an inherent part of growth.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s inherent. Yes. Okay. Will it set an important precedent for future
projects? Will it create or eliminate employment? Will it create a demand for additional community
services such as schools, police and fire?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t really think. Does anybody know? Not more than 5%.
MR. VOLLARO-This half of it, no. I think because it’s almost probably will turn out to be a turnkey
operation, mostly. It looks that most of those buildings, if I get what Rich is going to do, is pretty
much turnkey, in in the morning, out at night.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Did you answer that question as a yes?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They did say the other one was a yes, and a change in the density of land use.
That’s the yes one, Laura, and they said it was small.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then all the yes’s we’ve taken care of.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Good job. Does someone want to introduce the motion?
MR. STROUGH-Are we going to do a preliminary and a final or just?
MR. VOLLARO-No, this is only a preliminary. My understanding of this application was
preliminary only. Am I right?
MR. LAPPER-We submitted for both.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s here for both.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I know you did, but I.
MRS. MOORE-I gave you guidance that you could review it for preliminary, but the applicant did,
obviously, submit for final.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that, but during our sit down, at the Planning Staff meeting, we decided that
it would be preliminary only. I think Chris Round made that decision.
MR. MAC EWAN-What issues do we have that are hanging so outstanding that we have to hold this
over? If we approve this thing at Preliminary, what do we have hanging out there that needs to be
addressed at another meeting?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to get another statement from Warren County Department of
Public Works. It says, “As captioned above, Warren County has preliminarily reviewed the plans for
the Bay Brook Professional”, preliminarily. “At this time it appears that the highway permit may be
issued for this project, as shown on the plans. It may be expected that the permit would have a
condition requiring some vegetation be removed for the purpose of increasing the site distance from
vehicles entering Bay Road from the planned development.” That’s why I said in the beginning,
there’s a lot of caveats in this DPW statement, and I don’t think it stands on its own as a yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re reading more into that than what’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m just reading words.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s, as long as I’ve been on the Board, that’s a typical boilerplate response
from the County. They’re saying, based on the concepts of the plan presented to us, we’ll give this
thing preliminary approval, but we’re reserving the right to modify this thing, down the road, when
you come in to get your curb cut permit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what they’re saying.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what this says?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what that’s saying.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if it’s important enough to hold up the review, but the drawings have
to be updated. It says here that the catch basins 3A and 4A were added to Drawing S-4, but the
revisions are not reflected on Drawing S-4. It’s not added S-3.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically what happens, John, prior to any subdivision plat being signed, they all
have to be revised to reflect what the prepared resolution says.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine. Now, the clearing and vegetation removal plan, I don’t see that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Keep in mind, if this application, should we make a preliminary approval tonight,
it’s not going to go any place without DEC approval.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s fine. I’m just mentioning this for the record. To be on the safe side, I
have no problem with giving it preliminary approval, and I think Bob feels comfortable with that. It
kind of gives another month. We’ll just give it a final approval next month. Nothing comes up,
everything gets updated. I don’t think Richie’s ready to get in the ground yet.
MR. LAPPER-We’re actually hoping to submit for site plan approval. That’s why we’d like to get the
final, so we could, because we can’t get on the agenda for a site plan without getting the final
approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, during the time I sat in on the planning meeting, this was discussed at some
length, and Chris Round’s position at that meeting was this is a large enough subdivision application
that you should not go and do both at the same time. That was a decision we made at a planning
meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s predicated on the fact, and I talked with Chris about that, it’s
predicated on the fact that there were so many outstanding engineering concerns and comments.
They’ve all been addressed to the satisfaction of our consulting engineering firm. The only issues
that are outstanding here right now, that I can see is the stream crossing permit by DEC, and if they
don’t get that, they don’t go anywhere, and that’s a separate entity, and that’s a separate review
process all on its own, and it would be tied in to the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me try to get a clarification from you, Mr. Chairman, of what you mean by, that
this will become a firm understanding of when the curb cuts are actually applied for. In other words,
when I read something that says, has preliminarily reviewed the plans for the Bay Brook professional
road. It, to me, says that this is a preliminary approval not final. I mean, that’s what the word says. I
don’t know what the background is or what past history has gone on that, but I certainly don’t see
this document as standing on its own two feet, as a final approval. That’s just my particular thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-The permit is the actual final approval from the County. That’s what they issue,
and he’s basically saying, in that one paragraph, based on my review of the plans, I feel comfortable
that we would give a driveway permit issued to this project, but we’re withholding that opinion until
a later date. He’s reserving the right to modify that, down the road, if he needs to. He may come
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
back and tell these guys, hey, you’ve got to move that thing 120 feet and line it up with Baybridge
across the street.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, another thing is, why would even final stage be on the agenda if?
MR. VOLLARO-I asked that question. I called up the Staff and asked that question, and it’s because
the applicant submitted it. So they submitted it for to us.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we should move this along.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think we should make a motion and I think we should vote.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we’re in a situation that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right now, I would like to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
As prepared by the Planning Board Staff, with the following condition, that there be a stream
crossing permit from the DEC.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce the Final?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I would like to make a motion to approve the Subdivision No. 9-2000,
the Final Stage, for Schermerhorn Properties, again, as prepared by Staff.
MRS. MOORE-Staff did not prepare a resolution for Final.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no, but as written here. Isn’t that what we always say? I mean, I didn’t
write this up. This is just Preliminary? I’m sorry. I thought I had a Final one in my hand. Okay. It
usually says both. I’m sorry. Well, then, I would like to, well, then this is going to be tougher. I
would like to make a motion to approve the Final Stage for Schermerhorn Properties, which is
Subdivision No. 9-2000, with all the conditions that we used to approve the preliminary stage, and
using the same format as before.
MRS. MOORE-I just had a question for our attorney, was that, if you approve the DEC crossing
permit at Preliminary Stage, that that would have to be accomplished at Preliminary Stage. I know
you covered it in your.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can remember in the past we didn’t have to repeat it again, if it was already
approved once.
MRS. MOORE-Well, he would not be able to go forward on to final.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Until that was.
MR. LAPPER-Laura’s saying that should be in Final approval rather than Preliminary.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That should be in Final?
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Then what we’re going to have to do here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is re-do the other one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is rescind that first Preliminary approval, and I’ll make a motion to rescind that.
MOTION TO RESCIND THE PRELIMINARY STAGE APPROVAL FOR
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary stage application, SB 9-2000,
Schermerhorn Properties for subdivision of an 81 +/- acre parcel into a 16 lot subdivision: 12 lots
for Professional Office use, 3 lots for residential use and 1 lot for future use. Tax Map No. 60-2-4
Cross Reference: SB 4-1992, Use Var. 130-1992., and;
WHEREAS, the application was received Feb. 2001;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 03/23/01;
3/27/01 Staff Notes
3/20/01 Staff Notes
3/19/01 New Info received
3/18/01 C. Round from Nace Eng. in response to CT Male comment of 3/8, Wastewater
letter of 3/13 and Water Dept. letter of 3/14
3/14/01 Water Department comments
3/13/01 Wastewater Department comments
3/13/01 Notice of Public Hearing
3/12/01 Beautification Committee recommendation
3/8/01 CT Male Associates engineering review comments
37/01 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/27/01 concerning the above project (certified mail
receipts to be provided by applicant); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we go to the Final, the suggestions under Staff comments about some of
the updates to the drawings.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-They will all be done. You can add that as a condition of Final, that all the
drawings need to be revised in accordance with Staff comments and Engineering comments, prior to
the signing of the plats.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great.
MR. STROUGH-How about the test hole in the south entrance should be made to determine the
depth of the 12 inch water main? Does that come into play now or, this letter from Ralph
VanDusen?
MR. MAC EWAN-That would fall under the Staff and the Engineering comments addressed.
MR. STROUGH-Staff comments and C.T. Male comments, because C.T. Male’s the one that
suggested that the plans be updated, and I’m they will, but I don’t know if we have to include that as
a condition.
MR. MAC EWAN-They have to be prior to being signed.
MR. STROUGH-So that doesn’t have to be a condition. That’s a (lost words).
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mark used to say put it in anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MRS. MOORE-I have a question for the Board, under my suggestions under Item Number Seven
and Number Eight, the applicant hasn’t addressed those items. Actually, phasing is addressed under
Phase I and Phase II, but I’m saying the clearing and vegetation removal plan, I’m not certain, if the
Board has a concern with it, then, yes, that should be addressed, but I need that feedback from the
Board.
MR. NACE-There is no real clearing of vegetation, other than a couple of pine trees, in the way of
the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have no concerns with any of that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Me, either.
MR. STROUGH-Will that come with site plan anyway?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It can be handled at site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Someone put a motion up, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000, FINAL STAGE,
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
With the following conditions:
1. Obtain a stream crossing permit from DEC, and
2. The Plans must be updated and all drawings need to be revised addressing engineering and
staff comments and concerns.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March 2001by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-I want to qualify my no vote. I’m voting no on this because I still feel very strongly
that the letter from Warren County Department of Public Works from George VanDusen, which is
stamped in March 27, 2001, is not really a final approval for the, because it says reference preliminary
review of Bay Brook Professional Park. So that’s my qualified reason for voting no on that.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. NACE-Thank you very much.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thanks.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. That was a very thorough review and we appreciate it.
SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CHURCH OF THE KING PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: ROBERT FLANSBURG ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 685
BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH
WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA. ALL USES IN MR ZONES REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TABLED TO ALLOW APPLICANT
TO RESPOND TO ENGINEERING COMMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-2000
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP
NO. 60-7-2.1 LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES SECTION 179-18
BOB FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was tabled from August 22 and September 19, 2000,
nd
and also from February 20, this year.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 56-2000, Church of the King, Meeting Date: March 27, 2001
“Project Description
The applicant’s site plan was tabled at the February 27, 2001 meeting pending the applicant obtain a
final sign off from CT Male associates. The applicant has received a final sign-off from CT Male
(3/15/01 letter attached). The application has been in the review process since August 2000. The
applicant has submitted revised plans: Sheets 1 & 2 dated March 12, 2001 and Sheet 3 dated January
26, 2000.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
The project consists of a 6,000 square foot Church and associated parking. The Church will have an
entrance on the first floor and an entrance at the basement level. The elevation of the front entrance
is 29 +/- feet and the elevation of the rear entrance is 39 +/- feet (fax dated February 8, 2001). Both
entrances include provisions for pedestrian access.
The site will have 89 parking spaces with six of the spaces for handicap parking. The lighting scheme
includes six pole lights at 20 feet in height, building lights at each of the entrance and ground lighting
for the walks and sign. The existing building on site will remain as a dwelling for the use of the
church.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest replacing the spotlights on the sign in favor of bollard type lighting.
Bollard/fixed lighting fixtures will minimize glare or annoying light towards traffic.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. FLANSBURG-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. FLANSBURG-Hi. I’m Bob Flansburg. I’m the architect/engineer for the project.
BILL DAVIDSEN
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-I’m Bill Davidsen, Pastor of the Church of the King.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen, the floor is yours.
MR. FLANSBURG-Shall we begin with a brief overview of the project?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, we propose to construct a new church on this property. The church will
be about 60 feet wide by 100 feet long. It has over 80 parking spaces, 86 new parking spaces
provided. Sixty parking spaces are required. The current occupancy, Bill, correct me if I’m wrong, is
roughly 100 persons, 100 people. The new church is designed for 300, and largely because the septic
system that exists now was designed and installed back in ’97, I believe, and it was designed for a
maximum occupancy of 300 persons for the church, and that septic system currently serves both the
existing house and will eventually serve the house and the Church, and that’s for which it was
designed. So, obviously, being a church, its main use will be on Sundays, and maybe one evening
during the week.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Correct.
MR. FLANSBURG-We’ve taken into account several iterations of comments from C.T. Male, as
you’re aware. There are wetlands located to the rear of the property. We’re staying away from those
with our construction activities. We’re not encroaching upon them, and we’re taking measures to
protect them during construction, silt fence and so on. The area behind what’s delineated as a
parking lot is going to remain natural, and the areas have been indicated forward of the rear of the
parking lot, which will be seeded and grassed and maintained as lawn or grassy areas. There’s one
way traffic around the church building, as delineated on the site plan. There’s an in and an out
direction, divided by a center island at the entrance to the church from Bay Road, and the traffic will
flow counterclockwise around the church. There’s a total of six handicapped parking spaces
provided, two at the front of the church and four at the immediate rear of the church, and there’s a
front entrance to the church, at existing grade or thereabouts, and there’s also a rear entrance to the
church, and so the existing grade will be slightly modified, but to a large part the existing grade of
that site has been used to the advantage of that church, as far as the way it was designed. So I’m
going to leave it at that, unless you have anything else you would like to know.
MR. MAC EWAN-We might have one or two questions. Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a problem with the Staff suggestion for the spotlights on the
front?
MR. FLANSBURG-No. We’ve discussed that. I’m sure that we can have some discussion as to
what exactly those bollard lights will look like, what type. We’re open to accommodating that
suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. The only other thing I had to add really doesn’t relate to the site plan,
per se, but is sort of a practical matter, and that is with the parking, and I don’t foresee it being an
issue in the short term, but in the long run, if you begin to fill the church with 300 persons per
session, will the parking lot be sufficient to handle it? Are there future plans to expand the parking
area or contemplate that?
MR. FLANSBURG-There are no, we haven’t discussed any future plans to expand the parking area.
I think, in large part, we’re trying to adhere to the green space guidelines, and we really don’t have the
option to expand the size of the building without incurring quite a bit more expense, the
classification of construction. Right now it’s a Type Five wood frame. So to make the structure any
large, to accommodate more than the 300 persons would, you know, we would incur quite a bit more
expense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FLANSBURG-We’d have to sprinkle the buildings, you know, provide sprinklers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, it wasn’t a concern for site plan, because you’d have more than enough
spaces to meet Town requirements. So, it was just a thought. That’s all. That’s all I had, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine. I think that that lighting issue, I remember when we discussed
this before, that was one of the things we were concerned about, but, you changed the design, didn’t
you, the original design of the church? It looks a little bit different. Is it almost the same?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-We may, originally, have been talking about a 60 by 60, but that was a long
time ago, and now we’re 60 by 100.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and now it’s bigger.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-That was way back.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-It’s been a while.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It has. Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-On the leachfield, are there provisions in there for a replacement area in the event
that that field goes down?
MR. FLANSBURG-There’s not a lot of room there for, in other words, to provide 50% expansion,
and, Bob, I’d have to go back to the original design, which was designed by another engineer to see if
there was expansion provided, I don’t believe beyond the 300 persons, if this one fails.
MR. VOLLARO-What do you don’t?
MR. FLANSBURG-We don’t have a lot of options, to add to this system. So we’ve got basically
what we’ve seen on the site plan that’s being maintained as grassy area, which would allow the
installation of perhaps two lines, three lines, and that’s about it.
MR. EDWARDS-In terms of capacity, a 300 is really it for this system. That was documented,
before Bob got involved with this project. On that set of plans, there’s a design criteria for a 300
person church, and the use that would be incurred by a 300 person church. So I think, in terms of
failure mode, it’s like any other system. If it fails, it’s got to be replaced entirely, but it really can’t go
beyond the 300 person church as proposed to handle, there is no expansion area built into that 300
person system. That is it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Normally, you see on some of these site plans, you see a reserve area, in the
event of failure.
MR. EDWARDS-Failure in or expansion, and like I said, here my comment letter, they’re at 100, 150
people right now. I think that provides a factor of at least two for expansion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. FLANSBURG-Bob, I would just add to that. I think that I’ve discussed that with C.T. Male, as
Jim had mentioned, and I’ve also discussed it with the Church. They’re very much aware that key to
that is maintain the system. Because there’s not a lot of option there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see you’ve got a 500 gallon grease trap in there, too, as well.
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So, that’s a help. The only comment I had on here, and I guess I would direct this
at Staff, in preparation of the resolution, you have a final sign off, against the 3/15/01 C.T. Male
engineering comments, and you have question mark there. Is that just a typo or is that question
mark there for a reason?
MRS. MOORE-The question mark was due to the timing of when it arrived.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what I see missing in the resolution is a fairly in-depth letter, dated
February 16, 2001 by C.T. Male, and that isn’t listed in the resolution, and I think it probably should
be.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, that’s correct.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and since this redesign came through, I don’t have any further questions on
this, myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I think it’s fine. I’m just so delighted, and I didn’t even realize this until somebody
mentioned it, that traffic shouldn’t be an issue, and that’s a wonderful thing here, and as far as the
night thing, just make sure if you have any, you know, programs going on, just make sure they get
out either before or after ACC’s night classes, but, no, it seems fine to me. It really does.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Hi. How are you doing? Have you looked at your septic plans with the idea that
maybe some day you might be able to hook up to the sewer system if it ever gets up there? I mean,
did you look at that? I see it comes out the back, and then it goes up to the front, and through a
pumping system. So, I mean, is that something you did kind of keep in the back of your thinking or
no?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. What I did, John, was the system had been designed and was in place and
had been approved with the Church in mind, long before it was ever, I think all the details were
known, that we would have to come out the back. That was dictated by the grading. In reviewing
the septic plan, there’s a notation in I think it’s the last comment on the approved drawings, was, in
fact it says, since a municipal sewage system is likely to be provided within a five year period. That
was dated, I think, ’97.
MR. VOLLARO-Don’t believe them. You’ve got to force that issue. Believe me.
MR. FLANSBURG-We were aware of, that some day that might happen, but we didn’t, you know,
we just, in other words, the waste was brought, for the Church, from behind the Church, as you’ve
noted, to the front of the Church, and ties into the existing leach field. If that sewer system ever
takes place, we’ll tie in from the existing septic tank, into that, I don’t see that, not from the septic
tank, I’m sorry, but from the, we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
MR. STROUGH-When you’ve got it up to the leach field now, it doesn’t seem to be a problem to
have, it would work in tying it in somehow. All right. Well, let’s talk about the leach field. You can
ruin your leach field by parking on it, compacting the soil and taking away it’s efficiency.
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So there’s got to be no parking, and made clear. I was wondering if you’d thought
about a fence or, at least some signs saying no parking in this area, because I know you have the
special events, and I don’t know how frequently you have them, but when you do have a special
event, people will be inclined, unless there’s signage to do else wise, people will tend to park there,
and I know that you use ACC for your overflow parking, or at least you have in the past, for special
events, which seems to have worked out, and you have, you know, plenty of parking here, but who
knows how big you’re going to grow, etc., etc., but that was just a comment. I’d like to see at least
some signage indicating that there should be no parking on the grassy area, the lawn over the
infiltration system. Now, I also made a note, too, you see where your one way traffic flow is coming
out of the back parking area and going towards Bay Road, and you see where your striped crosswalk
location is? That it’s kind of a blind spot to anybody walking out to traffic coming out of there, I
might suggest stop signs.
MR. FLANSBURG-We just discussed that the other night, and I think that’s a valid comment.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, because.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Also, if people are dropping individuals off at the front door, they would
make a circle back around there. So a stop sign at the end of that little avenue would be ideal.
MR. STROUGH-If nothing else, it would slow them down a little bit, instead of charging right out
there.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you’re willing to put that in. Now, the Church is going to be done in a
colonial siding material, matching the house, same colors, same (lost words)?
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Yes. We’re very concerned about keeping the same tone of the old house.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-That’s good.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-And we’ve restored that old house for the very reason that we think it’s
valuable to keep it there and make it look as good as possible.
MR. STROUGH-Good. Okay. Now, with the windows, I see you’ve got some shutters and some
don’t. The house is shuttered, and some of the windows have shutters, on your plans, and some
don’t. So, I think the window on the right had shutters. The window on the left didn’t.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Really?
MR. STROUGH-So they plan on having shutters to match the house?
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-The one on the left must have fallen off.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I’m just trying to get it as congruent with the house as I can.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Yes. We certainly want to match. We want it to look like a campus rather
than a big shed a nice house, definitely.
MR. STROUGH-And then it should have black shutters on the Church, too, so everything looks.
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-Yes. That’s the kind of feel we want there.
MR. STROUGH-That’s good. Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention stormwater. Now, I didn’t see
a stormwater plan here, but I remember some place, because this thing goes back here. I mean, I’ve
got stuff that goes way back here. If I remember right, the general parking lot is sloped to the
southeast, and I thought there should be a catch basin, off in the right of way.
MR. FLANSBURG-The parking lot I believe is southwest, slopes southwest, back left corner of the
property.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s an old plan here. This is dated September 27, 2000, okay, and I was
working stormwater flow for you then, and I’ve got everything coming out to just in back of the
Church, right here, the general flow, and it comes out to here.
MR. FLANSBURG-It should be back further there, John, right there.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re flowing your stormwater in the wrong direction.
MR. FLANSBURG-Stormwater currently drains back and to the left, or down and to the left, if you
will.
MR. VOLLARO-It comes into the southwest corner of that lot.
MR. FLANSBURG-The southwest corner, and that’s where we kept it going. In fact, we’ve added
some new spot elevations along the southern edge of the parking lot, just to indicate that it basically
drops two feet from the immediate near side of the Church to the back of the parking lot.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got, all right, the last contour line I see is 362.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you going with this?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying it’s, I’m wondering where the stormwater is going. The grade,
well, I’ve got 362. That’s a 362 contour line, right.
MR. FLANSBURG-Three sixty two? Your plan is dated.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, 370, 68, 66, 64, 362, even on the new plan.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. At their immediate back, if I look at the top left rear corner of the Church
building, that contour is 356.
MR. STROUGH-Back here.
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-That’s 356.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s at the edge of the driveway here, the same.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s absolutely level between here and here.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, are you looking at Sheet Two?
MR. FLANSBURG-There’s a grading plan.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got an old plan here where I’ve worked out the stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re working on a new plan.
MR. VOLLARO-The new plan, John, shows an outlet of eight inch diameter outlet pipe invert set at
Elevation 350, and that invert is discharging to the wetland. So it looks reasonable there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you see the stormwater detention basin in the lower corner of the property?
Right there where the “L” is there’s an eight inch outlet right there. See the delineation of the
wetlands, New York State wetlands?
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where it’s outletting to.
MR. STROUGH-Got it. Okay. Now, the only other concern that I had is how about the front
stormwater? Now, if we come from Bay Road into your entrance, your in and out where you have a
sign, and water flow is going to go down towards the front of the Church.
MR. FLANSBURG-No. It’s going to flow, John, from the front of the Church building. Basically
the crown of the drainage, if you will, from the very front face of the Church building is going to
flow from there to the rear of the Church, and from there forward to Bay Road.
MR. STROUGH-Well, start me out at the sign. So the water’s going to flow.
MR. FLANSBURG-The sign at Bay Road?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, the sign on Bay Road. So the stormwater is going to have a tendency to flow
from there.
MR. FLANSBURG-Down Bay Road.
MR. STROUGH-Down Bay Road. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we get some guidance from Staff on this, please.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just worried about, let me get down to what I’m getting to.
MR. EDWARDS-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I’m worried about ponding in the entry area.
MR. EDWARDS-In the entry?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-Well, I don’t see that being a problem. There’s enough grade on Bay Road, on the
road itself. I don’t think there’s going to be a problem with ponding in the entrance way.
MR. STROUGH-Just because that’s where the people are going to be walking in and out. So you
don’t see that as a problem?
MR. EDWARDS-I don’t, no. The lack of drainage on Bay Road is a concern, I guess, in general, but
that was brought up, again, directly with the County personnel, and Mr. Flansburg, and I think, again,
during permitting, they’re going to be looking at potentially making a swale, to collect the water
between Bay Road and this property, to at least get the water off of the edge of Bay Road. There’s a
small amount of water that actually drains towards Bay Road. It’s not a large amount of pavement.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
It’s quite small, but I think it’s the best scenario they could have come up with here, as far as grading
the site off.
MR. STROUGH-So as long as they follow this grading in the parking plan, you’ll see that water
pretty much, no ponding in front of the Church.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. We had concerns in the back more than the front, because at one time there
was no real grading shown, the spot elevations in the back. So your question about ponding, we had
the same questions, back a couple of iterations ago, but now they’ve addressed it with spot elevations
and re-grading it, and the rear area works fine now, it looks to us.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m satisfied with that. It was just a concern, and I have to address it, and
that pretty much does my list, and I thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else Staff wants to add? Thanks. Anything else you gentlemen want to
add. Could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes? We’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come up and
identify yourself and your address for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVE KLEIN
MR. KLEIN-Yes. I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering, 2 Warren Street, Glens Falls,
New York. I’d just like to mention to the applicant, I believe that New York State Uniform Fire
Protection and Building Code requires a sprinkler system for any assembly use greater than 99
people, and I’m hoping that they have municipal water near the site?
MR. MAC EWAN-They do.
MR. KLEIN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Is that the new Code? Because they’re coming out with a new Code, right? I
didn’t know if that was by the new Code or the old Code.
MR. KLEIN-New Code will be in effect probably in a year and a half, and the current Code 99
people or more in a place of public assembly requires a fire protection system.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. Actually, before we do that, are there any other
questions, comments from Board members?
PASTOR DAVIDSEN-May we have clarification on that comment there? Because we were
informed that church buildings are exempt from sprinkler systems. That’s what your Fire Chief said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Okay.
Let’s do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did they submit the Short Form or the Long Form? I think it was the Short
Form. Laura, was the Short Form submitted or the Long Form?
MRS. MOORE-The Short Form was.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got it right here.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 56-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CHURCH OF THE KING, and
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 CHURCH OF THE KING, Introduced
by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 56-2000, Church of the King
for construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. Church with associated parking area. All uses in MR zones require
Planning Board review and approval. Tabled to allow applicant to respond to engineering
comments. Cross Reference: SP 50-2000. Tax Map No. 60-7-2.1, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received June 2000; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 03/23/01; and
3/27/01 Staff Notes
3/16/01 PB from L. Moore - Revised maps as result of meeting with CT Male Assoc. - SP1,
GP1, SEP-1
315/01 CT Male Associates engineering comments – Final Sign Off??
3/12/01 C. Round from R. Flansburg regarding revised info
3/7/01 Meeting Notice
2/20/01 Planning Board Resolution – Tabled
9/19/00 Planning Board Resolution – Tabled
8/22/00 Planning Board Resolution - Tabled
2/9/01 Rec’d – Revised Elevation Drawings
1/29/01 Letter of Transmittal – J. Edwards from L.Moore
1/26/01 R. Flansburg, Agent – In response to CT Male comments w/ revised maps, SP-
1,GP-1, SEP-1
11/29/00 Fax to R. Flansburg from LM – 10/23/00 & 8/17/00 CT Male comments
11/21/00 Staff Notes
11/1/00 Meeting Notice
10/24/00 Fax to R. Flansburg from LM – Preliminary review comments
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
10/23/00 CT Male eng. Comments resubmitted in response to 8/17/00 comments
9/27/00 R Flansburg, Agent – In response to CT Male comments of 8/17/00 w/revised
maps
SP-1, GP-1
9/5/00 Applicant/Agent from LM
8/22/00 Staff Notes w/attachments dated 8/14/00 from C. Jones (Fire Marshal), 8/9/00
from Warren Co. Planning (Approved), 8/17/00 CT Male eng. comments
8/18/00 Fax to R. Flansburg from LM – staff notes
8/17/00 CT Male eng. Comments
8/17/00 L. Moore from R. Flansburg regarding seating and septic sys. Info
8/15/00 Notice of Public Hearing
8/9/00 Warren Co. Planning summary – approved
8/7/00 Beautification Comm. Recommendation
8/6/00 Landscaping Plan received
8/3/00 R. VanDusen from CR – transmittal of application for review and comment
8/2/00 Meeting Notice
8/1/00 Plan Review Checklist prepared by L. Moore
7/28/00 J. Edwards from CR - transmittal of application for review and comment
6/30/00 R. Flansburg from LM – request for clarification and additional information
6/27/00 Application w/stormwater management info, elevations drawings, maps SP-1, 97-5
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/22/00, 9/19/00, 2/20/01, 3/27/01 concerning the above
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved based on the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Written verification from the Fire Marshal as to the use and requirements of the
sprinkler system, and
2. That the resolution should contain the letter of 2/16/01 from CT Male Associates
which is absent from the list, and
3. Add a “No Parking Sign” to area near septic infiltration field. (This is for the safety
of the septic system; parking on the septic system could cause damage to the
system), and
4. Add a “Stop Sign” to exit lane adjacent to building. (This will assist in pedestrian
safety to the main entrance of the Church).
Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. FLANSBURG-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, P.C.
ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: SE CORNER OF GLEN & LAFAYETTE STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF ATM TO IMPROVE ENTRANCE TO
LAFAYETTE STREET AND IMPROVE SITE LIGHTING. ALL USES IN PC ZONES
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 3/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-25, 27, 28 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES
SECTION: 179-22
DAVE KLEIN & MICHELLE SCIAMBATTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-2001, Glens Falls National Bank, Meeting Date: March 27, 2001
“Project Description
The applicant proposes alterations and expansion to the Glens Falls National Bank on Glen Street.
The improvements include relocation of the ATM, reconfiguration of drive thru lanes, and lighting
improvements.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
Site Overview
The ATM addition is approximately 70 square feet and will be located at the end of the
existing drive thru extension. The extension has approximately four teller units utilized for
the drive thru services. CT Male provided comment on the lighting plan for the project and
has indicated the plan is consistent with the proposed zoning ordinance (3/15/01 letter
attached).
The relocation of the ATM changes the traffic flow for the site to provide better access to
the more utilized features of the bank. The night drop box will remain in the existing
location and will have limited amount of traffic because it is not a high traffic generator.
The ATM’s new location is easily accessible from Lafayette and Route 9 and will place traffic
farther from the intersection.
There is a minimal increase in impermeable surface for parcel 104-1-27 because of the
relocation of the curb. The existing drainage pattern will not be altered for the project. The
parcels that are impacted due to the project meet the permeability requirements for the Plaza
Commercial Zone, 20% is required.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The project is located in Neighborhood 7 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Plan
indicates the Lafayette and Route 9 Intersection should be realigned due to traffic flow problems in
the area. The project may alleviate some congestion at the intersection by moving the traffic flow
away from the intersection.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MS. SCIAMBATTI-Hello.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, could you identify yourselves.
MR. KLEIN-I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering.
MS. SCIAMBATTI-Michelle Sciambatti, North Country Engineering.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. KLEIN-Thank you. We’re here representing Glens Falls National Bank for a relocation of their
ATM. Currently their ATM, this is the Queensbury branch on Glen Street, corner of Glen and
Lafayette. Currently, their ATM is located on the side of the building. They have a very difficult
time exiting onto Lafayette Street. It’s very close to the light entering Route 9/Glen Street. They
want to relocate the ATM to the end of their drive through islands. In doing so, we are correcting
some problems with the lighting on Glen Street, where the lighting shines, comes off the site, taking
a lot of light fixtures off Glen Street, and with providing site lighting in the back, as required for an
ATM by the Federal government. Any questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. KLEIN-It’s a pretty simple project.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll start with you, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just had a couple of questions on internal circulation, and I can address
those from here and you can follow it on your drawing. Starting from the ingress to the extended
canopy for the new enclosure, I see that the traffic flow comes around, and then off Upper Glen
Street we’ve got traffic coming up, right there, traffic going north, and also traffic coming south out
of the new curb island. After somebody comes by, is coming around to get into the extended
canopy, the ATM enclosure, it looks like there could be a conflict right at that intersection there,
where people are coming in to make a right into the enclosure, and people are coming north off
Upper Glen. Is there some sort of a sign there that’s a traffic direction sign so people don’t get
tangled up? Do you see where I’m at?
MR. KLEIN-You’re referring to people coming off Glen Street to come through either the drive
through, the ATM, and there’s a one way entrance off Lafayette Street that blends into there.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. So those two traffic paths do converge right there, and there should
be some signage to keep them from getting in one another’s way, coming in to the enclosure.
MR. KLEIN-We could put a stop sign on the entrance from Lafayette, or a yield sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Or a yield sign. That certainly might help. Do you agree with that analysis?
MR. KLEIN-That would be fine, yes. They never mentioned it was a problem, and we haven’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t there signage there now?
MR. KLEIN-The survey doesn’t indicate, well, it does say a sign. I’m not exactly sure what the sign
says, but there is a sign.
MR. VOLLARO-I noted that, but it didn’t, up front on the road, one, two and three signs are
identified as a night drop entrance, exit only, and drive in and ATM maintenance.
MR. KLEIN-Those are new signs, one, two and three.
MR. VOLLARO-Those are new signs. What this sign says, I have no idea.
MR. KLEIN-I can’t help you. If it’s not a yield sign or something similar, I’m sure we can put one
in.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The next thing I have is, where is the second sign? In other words, we have
sign number one, talks about a night drop entrance. I don’t see where the second night drop
entrance is. I see one indicated here, but I don’t see the second one, and it says two required.
MR. KLEIN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I searched all over and couldn’t find it.
MR. KLEIN-They’re in the same location. One’s on one side of the post and the other’s on the
other side of the post.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That answers that question. All right. I was looking for another one of
those symbols and couldn’t find it, and that goes the same for the drive in and ATM entrance
number three there, one on one side and one on the other?
MR. KLEIN-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. METIVIER-Nothing. I’m glad to see it’s being moved. It’s in a horrible spot now, but I guess
I was concerned that you’re keeping the night drop there in the same place, but you know, now that I
think about it, usually with night drop it’s not a peak hour. So it usually hasn’t posed problems.
MR. KLEIN-It’s not heavily used.
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. KLEIN-It’s got to be in a secured location inside the building.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but, no, I think it’s fine. I’m just glad it’s being proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No, it’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I must be the only person that uses this Bank. I love this project. I mean, I
hate trying to get in and out of that ATM drive through. So, I think it’s a great project, and I think it
accomplishes exactly what you say, and that’s getting that egress away from Lafayette Street, because
it’s almost impossible to get out of there at certain times, and the concern about the merging traffic
coming together, there’s really so little traffic that comes into the drive in lanes at any given time that
it’s real easy to know who has the right of way, and I think there is a sign there already.
MR. KLEIN-Yes. There says there’s a sign there, and I would suspect you could get at least four or
five cars backed up in each lane there before it would be a problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I’ll be real glad when it’s finished.
MR. KLEIN-They’re anxious to do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. I’ll echo Chris’s sentiments. I think it’s a tremendous
improvement over the situation that’s there now. I mean, I feel sorry for people who try to pull out
of there, especially at peak hours, and try to merge into traffic. It’s just a disaster. Anything else that
you wanted to add?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. KLEIN-No, we’re looking forward to using the facility, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to make a comment, that if that sign that’s on the drawing now is not a
stop or yield sign, that should be made a stop or yield at the place where those two traffic patterns
come together.
MR. STROUGH-With the following condition.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s back that up. Rescind your motion and do another one. We didn’t get
to the vote part yet, so it doesn’t really matter.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2001 GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 9-2001, Glens Falls National
Bank for relocation of ATM to improve entrance to Lafayette Street and improve site lighting. All
uses in PC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map Nos. 104-1-25, 27, 28,
and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 2/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 03/23/01;
3/27/01 Staff Notes
3/20/01 Notice of Public Hearing
3/15/01 CT Male Associates
3/14/01 Warren Co. Planning - approve
3/7/01 Meeting Notice w/project ID notice attached
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/27/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved and subject to the following conditions:
1. With the condition that they will add a yield sign adjacent to the sign as noted on the
map that currently says “Do Not Enter”, and that yield sign will be located on that
general area.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March 2001 by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-What’s a good way of referencing that sign, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a dot on the drawing, really. It’s there. It says, the existing drawing shows a
sign at that spot, and we don’t know what it says.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not the only sign.
MR. KLEIN-I suspect that sign’s a one way sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Right here where it says “sign”, we don’t know what that sign is, but that should be
either a yield sign for traffic coming this way and this way, and it says “sign”.
MR. MAC EWAN-That sign right there says “Do Not Enter”, to that driveway. That’s what that
sign says right there.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve been through there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’re right. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It says “Do Not Enter”, because that’s one way coming off Lafayette.
MR. STROUGH-It’s still one way, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, it’s two one way traffic patterns running into each other. This sign says
do not go into, do not do this.
MR. STROUGH-Do you want that to maintain “Do Not Enter” and yield to oncoming traffic?
MR. KLEIN-You could say we’ll add a yield sign at that intersection.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine with me. It’s up to the man who’s making the motion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, I’m making the motion because you wanted a condition. So you tell me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I would encourage you to just revise your motion to indicate that a yield
sign will be placed in the area of the sign that has no designation on it. So we know where to tie it in,
the undelineated sign, I guess you could say it.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Why don’t I just say a yield sign will be added to the discussed location.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because Staff, five years from now, if they go out and check it, they’ll want to
know where the area was we discussed.
MR. STROUGH-Are you 100% sure that it says “Do Not Enter”?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say I’m 90% sure.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Will add a yield sign, adjacent to the sign as noted on the map, that
currently says “Do Not Enter”, and that yield sign will be located in that general area. Okay.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. KLEIN-Thank you.
MS. SCIAMBATTI-Thank you.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 2-2001 RECOMMENDATION TYPE:
UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE CREAM CO., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK
PARILLO LOCATION: CORNER OF BIG BAY & CORINTH RDS. CURRENT
ZONING: LI-1A PROPOSED ZONING: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING
OF A 3.52 ACRE PARCEL TO C R-15 FOR A 2,400 SQ. FT. STEWART’S ICE CREAM
STORE WITH SELF SERVE GAS AND A 2000 SQ. FT. RETAIL RENTAL UNIT.
CROSS REFERENCE: TB RES. 103,2001 SP 5-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
3/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 136-1-10 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION 179-94
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 2-2001, Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., Inc., Meeting
Date: March 27, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes to rezone a parcel of property from Light Industrial - One Acre to
Commercial Residential - 15 thousand square feet.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?
The applicant proposes to construct a Stewarts Ice Cream Store with associated convenience and gas
amenities. Currently there are limited gasoline/amenities on the west side of the Northway.
2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
The Commercial Residential zone allows for a mixture of residential and commercial business.
3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?
Only one parcel is proposed to be changed from Light Industrial to Commercial Residential. The adjacent
zone is associated with existing non-conforming residential uses and vacant light industrial land.
4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone?
The parcel of land is a corner lot having frontage on Corinth Road and Big Bay Road. The amount of traffic
that occurs on Corinth Road is more suitable for a business than residential. Since the parcel has two road
frontages, using Big Bay Road will assist in traffic control.
5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities?
The commercial use of the property will include connection to the waterline and a driveway permit.
6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question?
The property is an “L” shaped lot that does not promote a light industrial development.
7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
The commercial development would include grading of the parcel, installation of stormwater management
controls and installation of a septic system.
8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use
Master Plan?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
The property is located in Neighborhood 13. The 1998 Comprehensive Land use Plan encourages some
commercial development in this area west of the Northway. The Plan also indicates a gasoline service station
on the west side of the Northway would alleviate some traffic congestions on the Eastside of the Northway.
9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal?
The change of zone to commercial is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Suggestions
The purpose of Planning Board review of the change of zone is to evaluate the positive and negative
impacts to the surrounding area and to provide a recommendation to the Town Board about the
change of zone. The Planning Board is the SEQR lead agency for this Petition of Zone Change and
has previously received site plan related information.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LEWIS-Hi everybody. Tom Lewis is my name. I’m the real estate representative of Stewart’s
Ice Cream. Do you want the long presentation or the short presentation?
MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever you’re comfortable with.
MR. LEWIS-In preparing my notes, after I read the Staff notes, I said, I don’t have to do anything. I
rest on the Staff notes. Well done.
MR. MAC EWAN-That definitely was one of the shorter presentations I’ve ever been privy to.
Thanks.
MR. LEWIS-We also want to pay more taxes in your Town. Now how many people ever say that to
you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not many.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I’ll be interested to hear if there’s any controversy over this project, but I’ve
never met a Stewart’s I didn’t like, and I think, with all the people coming down West Mountain
Road, especially from the developments up there, this could actually be a positive thing, in that you
can get them on the Northway without having to go under the bridge and get into all the congestion
of all the other gas stations, the bagel shops and everything. I think it’s a perfect plan. I could be
wrong. I’ve been known to be wrong, but I think it’s a good.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good point. I think putting a store there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take your turn. Is that it?
MR. METIVIER-I’ve said my piece.
MR. MAC EWAN-Great. John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s talk re-zoning. The site plan.
MR. LEWIS-That comes later.
MR. STROUGH-That comes later.
MR. LEWIS-We hope.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I’ll comment on that in a minute. I don’t have a problem with the re-
zoning. It seems to be a nice location. You should do quite well.
MR. LEWIS-Actually, you know, it’s really early. We’re a little bit early in the market, but we’re
trying to learn how to project where the growth is going to be, you know, five or ten years down the
road.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I can see you doing well. The only problem I have is that the square that
you want to use, that’s fine, but that one long stretch of property that goes in back of everybody else,
if we’re going to re-zone this, then there’s a whole thing here.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. LEWIS-That’s a good point. Yes, I’m certainly not asking for the whole thing.
MR. STROUGH-Because that just seems to be running into problems with everything else, all the
way down the stretch of that road, because in the back of their lots, it’s zoned Light Industrial, but
then it’ll be zoned Highway Commercial here.
MR. LEWIS-I mean, it would be landlocked, but, you know, we don’t mind limiting something.
MR. STROUGH-If they could just make a property divide and leave the re-zoning on that tongue,
the way it’s currently zoned.
MS. RADNER-Remember that you’ve got buffer requirements where the two meet, though. So you
want to be careful where you put the line.
MR. STROUGH-Well, they would establish the line, based on what their needs are, and then from
there it’ll continue to stay zoned as it currently is, Light Industrial.
MRS. MOORE-We looked into that, in regards to maintaining the Commercial Residential zone, all
the way through the entire parcel, and if you look at the buffer zone requirement, it only requires that
the Light Industrial side maintain a 50 foot buffer. It does not require the Commercial Residential
side maintain a 50 foot buffer, and typically if you had an industrial abutting a residential, 50 feet
would be on the industrial side and 50 feet would be on the residential side. So there would be a
potential of 100 feet. In this instance there’s only a 50 foot.
MR. STROUGH-So what if I wanted to locate a Light Industrial enterprise, so I buy all the houses
on Big Boom, just in back of Stewart’s. Then I’ve got a little strip of property in back of all the
property that I just bought that I’d like to also buy, but I’m going to have to get it re-zoned, because
it was re-zoned from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial, and now I want to get it back to Light
Industrial. Why don’t we leave it Light Industrial and just re-zone that parcel they need?
MRS. MOORE-A concern is that it creates a split zone which creates, when you do a parcel, if you
have one parcel and it’s split zoned, it creates other issues.
MR. STROUGH-I’m saying divide this into two separate parcels.
MRS. MOORE-Then that’s called a subdivision. The other part of that is that this septic system, or
the septic system for the, is in that leg.
MR. STROUGH-Well, all right. We’ll think about that.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. We’re willing to work with whatever anyone wants. I just want to sell ice cream.
We don’t care about the rest of that.
MR. STROUGH-And the other thing is, and I’m going, you know, that there won’t, I mean, I’ll
approve your re-zoning the way I see it right now, but as far as the layout goes, is, Exit 18 is one of
the entries to the Town, Exit 19 and 20 as well, but it’s an important one. It’s going to be an entry
way that is going to be all re-done, 2002/2003, and if we get it re-done the way we want to, it’ll be
three lane with sidewalks, landscaping on the side, trees, buildings in front, parking in back. Have
you looked at our proposed plan for that whole corridor?
MR. LEWIS-I haven’t.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s in the draft zoning ordinance. It’s in its almost final version
now.
MRS. MOORE-Almost.
MR. STROUGH-And so what we’re proposing, and we have to keep in mind, with the direction that
we’re going, okay, in re-doing this corridor, we want to enhance the whole corridor with, like I said,
the widening of the street, the sidewalks, the landscaping, the building placement, the parking
placement. We’ve already done one project, at least one project, where the applicant did meet our
standards, had the landscaping in front, the building, the parking in back, had it Victorian in style,
and it’s going to be a beautiful project when it gets done, and it’s also going to be, I think, an
example of the direction that we want to go in for the whole corridor. So, the layout, as I see it, is I
would like to see the layout of your Stewart’s, which is more in line with the kind of design we want
to go with down the road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Say that again, John?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-I want the design of the Stewart’s to be more in line with what we’re proposing for
that corridor.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that corridor, stop me if I’m wrong, that corridor is talking from the
Northway, eastward into the City.
MR. STROUGH-So we should end the concept, because the Northway’s there?
MR. LEWIS-Well, I think what might be the appropriate and positive answer to your question is that
if we are re-zoned, and when we go through site plan review, I’m sure you will find this, wherever
possible, a pliable applicant, who just likes to say yes.
MR. STROUGH-But I just wanted to give you an indication of where I’m coming from, and there
may not be general agreement. That’s just me.
MR. LEWIS-I understand.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then, John, that means that they would change their design, because all
their stores have the same.
MR. STROUGH-And I don’t want a cookie cutter corridor coming in here that looks like Suburbia
USA everywhere in the place. All the Stewart’s look the same. All the McDonald’s look the same
and all the Burger King’s look the same, and I just want to do something different for this corridor,
and I don’t care if the Northway’s here, Stewart’s is close enough, it’s in the theme area. That’s the
way I look at it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got to make a comment on that. I agree with John 100%, but, you know,
earlier, when he said something to one of the applicant’s, and I’m thinking, my God, I feel exactly the
same way, but you feel so funny bringing something like this up because we don’t want to step on
anybody’s toes. We don’t want to sound like the design that you have isn’t nice, because it is, but we
want to be able to look back, 10 or 20, 15 years from now and say, wow, you know, they did a good
job, or whoever was making some of these decisions did a good job in keeping with the new, you
know, the new way we want something to look like.
MR. LEWIS-I know what you mean.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, it’s hard to come out, because I’m like, my God, I don’t want people to
be upset with us. I don’t want people to think that we’re up here thinking that we’re a bunch of
architects that know it all.
MR. LEWIS-No, I know where you’re coming from.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I know exactly where John’s coming from, and I feel the same way, but
how do you say it to the applicant without stepping on anybody’s toes?
MR. LEWIS-You just said it very nicely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, thanks.
MS. RADNER-Remember, folks, we’re talking about just zoning right now. There’s no plan before
you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I know that, but I think that bringing it up a little bit each time does keep
us tuned in
MR. STROUGH-Well, and another reason, Cathy, too, is to kind of let the applicant read if there’s
general agreement with me, he can say that, and that will reduce, in other words, come back with the
same project and have him, tell him then maybe he can do something innovative.
MS. RADNER-Just be careful, because you don’t want to be granting or giving recommendations on
zoning based upon what you’re proposing to be at that site. That would be spot zoning. You want
to look at the conformity with the neighborhood, and whether or not this zone change makes sense
for that piece of land.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. LEWIS-And again, I think the appropriate answer is we have learned, over the years, to
appreciate a better looking site. It is in our own interest to have a better looking site. So, hopefully,
if we get past re-zoning, you’ll be happy with us as an applicant, by in large.
MR. STROUGH-So, just to recap, what we’d like to see first is the landscaping. That’s your
introduction. Then maybe your building and your other amenities.
MR. LEWIS-And hopefully, if we get to site plan review, we could do that.
MR. STROUGH-And landscaping first, the building (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’re getting ahead of the curve here. Let’s stick with the re-zoning.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking site plan issues, and I want to stick to the re-zoning.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve said my piece.
MR. LEWIS-It is and was unusual to find a Comprehensive Plan that thought far enough ahead to
address this particular area. So we’re very comfortable, that is, in the long and the short term interest
of the Town, to re-zone this, as a way of actually reducing traffic. We don’t find a lot of sites like
that. This one is like that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I agree with Tony’s comments and John’s comments. I think it’s an
appropriate use for that piece of property, and I certainly support the proposed zone change.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I concur.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything Staff wants to add? I almost forgot Bob. Go ahead. I really
overlooked you. I apologize.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I agree with Tony generally. I just want to say one thing about the Section 4
neighborhood, and I know that it acknowledges the gas station and so on. It also says something
else, however, that I wanted you to be aware of. It says the area between Exit 18 and Big Bay Road
could support medium intensity commercial development. It is currently zoned Commercial
Residential, and we’re about to look at the re-zoning, and I understand that it’s a re-zoning issue. It
says internal traffic circulation and limited access points would be important issue to consider with
any proposed development. Limited access points, and when we get into site plan review, I’m going
to be looking into that. It basically is the entrance on Corinth Road. I don’t think that’s the subject
of this. I think the change is correct, The zoning change is certainly, I’m going to vote for it, I can
tell you that now, without reservation.
MR. LEWIS-We appreciate your support.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? May I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes? I’m
going to guess we’re going to have some comments. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone
want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come on up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
AUDREY KIERNAN
MRS. KIERNAN-Hi. I’m Audrey Kiernan. I live at 155 Big Bay Road. I have a cold, so bear with
me. I’m not any architect or engineer or anything like that, but I’ve spent a lot of time just going
over the corridor past the Northway heading toward West Mountain, and I want you to be very
aware of what’s going on there. This is Rhode Island Avenue. This is Big Bay Road. This is where
the proposed Stewart’s is. The Northway is over here, McDonalds. I’ve walked this with a measure,
from DOT, and total distance here, 46.5 on Rhode Island. This house here, which used to be Bud
Luntz Auto garage, his house, 97.8, 169 for the garage, a dirt wooded area, 581, McDonalds truck
parking lot, 640.7, grass, 73.3, McDonalds entrance, 781.5, total distance, 918. That’s .2 miles, that’s
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
it, okay, that distance, .2 miles, all right. On this side you have the Northway, Super 8’s entrance, a
small grassy area, driveway, driveway, where they tore down a house, and where they have a vegetable
stand usually on the corner in summer, Big Bay Road, Curtis Lumber here. We’re zoned Light
Industry that road. It’s Glens Falls. Unfortunately, it’s considered West Glens Falls. Yes, it’s one of
the entrances to both the City of Glens Falls and of the Town of Queensbury. So it’s very much an
entrance for both our cities, and well needs to be enhanced, and I think it’s an area that’s much
neglected a lot of times. On this road right now, currently, low industry, I have Bill Threw, who
rents to Encore, who, I don’t know if you guys ever go down there, has about 40, 50 trucks there,
who pull out of Threw’s, do not stop, pull right out in front of you. That road is zoned 55 miles an
hour, no posting on it. So it’s a 55 mile an hour road. DOT also uses that road for the entrance to
the back of the Northway for garbage pick up and that type of thing, which is exactly about 1.7 miles
down that road. I have Gross Electric. I have Curtis. I have the old Pro Craft building that serves
some light to heavy duty trucks, the old Adirondack Coffee building, some guy’s wood shop, and the
DOT sand pit, at the beginning of that road. Light Industry, I don’t really know what Light Industry
means, but I don’t consider Curtis Lumber really Light Industry, nor Bill Threw, with the tractor
trailer traffic that goes up and down that road, to be Light Industry, and it’s gotten to be quite heavy
over the last couple of years. I leave for work at 5:30 in the morning, and often there’s trucks parked
at Curtis, no lights on, across from Dave’s house, dead stopped in the middle of the road, making it j
just about one lane, which is going to be really close to the proposed Stewart’s. I think Stewart’s
does a ton for the community. As far as traffic patterns and Stewart’s, I haven’t met a Stewart’s yet
that wasn’t a traffic problem. If you look at Broad Street, Ridge Street, Corinth, who has two
Stewart’s within a quarter of a mile of each other, with two different looks on their buildings, one
that’s very much the generic Stewart’s, and the other one that I wouldn’t say is much of an
improvement from the generic Stewart’s. My concerns, and there’s some major ones, somebody just
gave me this today, but the average daily traffic flow on Corinth Road, okay, average daily traffic
flow, done 2:26, 3/4/98, so this has picked up, is 11,800 cars a day. Okay. That’s a lot of traffic.
Yes, Stewart’s would love to put a Stewart’s in there. When you get up further towards West
Mountain, it drops off to 6800, up by Pinewood Avenue, and David Hamel, who also lives on Big
Bay Road. So, I took some pictures, in my spare time, and this is Big Bay Road. It has three
telephone poles there that trucks have to maneuver around. You can pass these around. This is Exit
18, about three o’clock. This is heading east/west on there, you have Big Bay Road and Rhode
Island Avenue, and if you look at his site plan here, one of the exits for Stewart’s is right across from
Rhode Island Avenue. I want you guys to try to get out of Rhode Island Avenue some day at five
o’clock, and you’ve got people coming out of Big Bay Road. You’ve got people going around your
car because you’re trying to turn in Big Bay Road, and then you’ve got somebody coming out of here,
and this person trying to get over there, you’re going to have a nice four car pile up there quite often.
There’s some other pictures here, please look at. I was hoping that there was somebody in the
Town of Queensbury who did direct people who sell real estate and want to make money, and want
to build commercial buildings in Glens Falls, or Queensbury, and direct them to sites that are more
appropriate for a Stewart’s, and I’m sure if you had a Stewart’s up by West Mountain and Bedford
Close, we’d get a lot of arguments, but what a perfect place. You’ve got West Mountain traffic,
you’ve got Corinth’s traffic coming over, you’ve got people like me on this side of the Northway who
might drive up to that. There’s a 7.72 acre parcel, just past the logging building, down by Northern
Distributing, which would make a great Stewart’s or strip mall, with a road through to Luzerne Road,
so that we could relieve some congestion in the Town of Queensbury, and fit in with the big master
plan. Another really important consideration, from my point of view, is Big Bay Road. I live on Big
Bay Road. It is about 2.5 miles. It goes into Palmer Drive. It is one way in, one way out. We have
no other access route out of that road. I already have problems trying to get out of my road. It’s
almost impossible to take a left. Most of the time going to work I take a right, because I get on the
Northway, but there’s been many accidents there, and it’s not an easy road to get out of. Now with
the truck traffic that’s there, the road is narrow, there’s no shoulders, and there’s significant amount
of road damage, just from the heavy trucks that have been going down there since Curtis opened. I
guess those are most of my issues. There’s poor visibility at that corner. There’s poor access to that
road, and about four, five o’clock when the sun’s going down, you cannot barely see to take a right,
because the sun, there are no trees or anything. So it comes down over by UPS and the Mobil and
just about blinds you, and they’re all really important considerations, that I think, you know, in the
big picture, that maybe this whole thing should be headed off, until we improve the corridor, make it
the four lanes, relieve some of the traffic congestion, and make West Glens Falls what it could be.
It’s a beautiful stretch of river there. I grew up in Glens Falls most of my life. Never knew Big Bay
Road existed, and the properties and the houses and that stretch of river is incredible, and I invite
you all to come down and see it, because it’s truly magnificent, and what are we doing? Putting low
industry on top of it. That’s about it. I don’t know if Dave wants to say anything more.
DAVE HAMEL
MR. HAMEL-My concerns are with the re-zoning. I own a piece of property on the end of that
piece going up behind. The piece coming up from Stewart’s and Corinth Road up to what is I think
called the Tower Road. I own the last piece up there, and my concern is that buffer zone that you
were talking about, where I would have to have 50 feet of buffer zone for commercial light industrial
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
business in my, on my location, if I had the right amount of property, but if they did something, or
whoever it was re-zoned wouldn’t have to do that. They could abut me, to my property, and to re-
zone that, I don’t think there’s enough property there, myself, to come up through the back of there.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about that long, narrow strip?
MR. HAMEL-That long strip coming from the Tower Road down to Corinth Road.
MR. LEWIS-You abut that?
MR. HAMEL-Yes, I do.
MR. LEWIS-I’ll answer that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. HAMEL-And, like Audrey said, the traffic problem there, when you’re talking, when he’s
talking the two exits, you’re still exiting everything onto that Corinth Road corridor, and I think she’s
figured out that it’s only 100 foot into one area, two exits off that same road for the one business.
MRS. KIERNAN-Yes, we figured out between where the pavement ends across to where Big Bay
exits on to here, now Stewart’s is proposing an exit here, and over here, the road is 46.5, 97.8 to
there, and 169 feet until you hit Big Bay Road. That’s a short distance, and, I mean, I, if I’m going to
Glens Falls, it’s nuts to try to go that way. Traffic like, I mean, if there’s a hockey game or it’s early
morning traffic, seven to nine, or three to five or six, I try to swing this way, head down Rhode
Island, cut Luzerne Road, Veteran’s Road, to get into town, because that’s the only way you can get
into town, is to knock out all that traffic, and it’s a problem area. I think it really needs a lot of
looking at, and I think there’s a lot that could be done with it. I mean, I’m not totally against
Stewart’s, and Stewart’s does a ton for the community, but I think that 7.72 acre site is more
conducive to what they want to do, and meeting the needs of the Town of Queensbury. That’s less
than a mile from the Northway. If they’re going to go to Stewart’s on Big Bay Road, they’re going to
go down a quarter mile more to go to a Stewart’s on the right hand side.
MR. HAMEL-That would be the only gas station or convenient store from there to Corinth.
MRS. KIERNAN-There to Corinth.
MR. HAMEL-Period, that’s it, to the Stewart’s in Corinth.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
MRS. KIERNAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? No? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that Staff wanted to add? Any other questions, comments from Board
members?
MR. STROUGH-Just that that whole area is proposed for Light Industrial, even for future uses. I
mean, after Corinth Road is developed.
MRS. KIERNAN-Can you clarify Light Industry for me?
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, the old and the new version don’t vary that much. Light Industrial,
what is allowed in Light Industrial, rather than just getting into specifics, a freight terminal, extraction
of sand, stone, gravel, restaurant, building supply, lumber yard, light manufacturing/assembly or
other industrial research operation, warehouse for enclosed storage goods, laboratory, office building,
truck repair facility, heavy machinery repair facility, tv, radio station, construction company, logging,
heavy equipment, heavy equipment sales, heavy equipment storage, agricultural service, passenger,
limousine and/or bus service, and in the new Code, if it’s adapted as it is, allowed uses, also Light
Industrial, would be freight terminal, sand and gravel extraction, restaurant, building supply, lumber
yard and similar storage yard, light manufacturing, assembly or other industrial or research operation,
warehouse, distribution center, laboratory, office building in excess of 100 square feet, heavy
equipment storage, sales, service, television/radio station, construction company, logging company,
agricultural service use, passenger limousine and/or bus storage facility. So, that gives you an
indication of what Light Industrial is.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MRS. KIERNAN-But nothing with traffic flow?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that we deal with at site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to get engaged in dialogue here while I don’t have you up here at the
table, please. Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to throw in a couple of comments. Regardless of what happens with
any re-zoning application for this particular corner of Corinth and Big Bay Road or any other section
of that strip right through there, the corridor, the Corinth Road corridor is part of a master plan of
being re-done, undertaken, it’s been well publicized in the papers, but the County and the State are
joining forces, and part of the re-work of that corridor, which everyone is just basically is thinking
from the Northway eastward into the City, is also extending westward, just past the Big Bay Road
intersection. So that intersection, as well, is going to be redesigned and re-done. Many of those curb
cuts that are along there are probably going to be consolidated and made much fewer. So that it will
make traffic ingress and egress easier. As far as the comment about Glens Falls versus Queensbury,
versus West Glens Falls, I live up off the Corinth Road two miles, and I’ve always called it
Queensbury, never West Glens Falls, and I’m proud that it’s Queensbury and that we’re part of
Queensbury. As far as future development sites on Corinth Road, you’re right. There is one.
There’s one farther up by West Mountain Road intersection. As part of the Hudson Pointe PUD
about an acre was set aside for this exact purpose, for a convenience store, gas station type affair. So
there is potential that something farther up the road could be done. As far as the stretch of river and
preserving it, the Town is taking great strides in trying to preserve that whole entire stretch of the
river, inclusive of taking over a lot of the properties along the river, through a conservancy group,
and part of it, if I’m not mistaken, is through Open Space Institute, plus the Nature Conservancy had
some part of it, but now a local conservancy group has now taken, so that whole contiguous piece of
the river, from the, is it Lake Luzerne Town line, or the Corinth? No, it’s Lake Luzerne Town line,
almost all the way down to the Northway, where those camps start to become prevalent through
there, is all going to be forever wild and forever remain open space. So the Town has been really
actively taking those roles and trying to preserve that. The question is, you know, is this a right re-
zoning application for this parcel or not? I think it is, because I think it makes sense that you need to
have some sort of transitional zone going from a heavy highway intensive use, which is closer to the
Northway, and closer on Main Street, as you start getting to transition into the Light Industrial lands
and the residential areas that are along Corinth Road, and I think that this would make good use of
that parcel. That’s what I’ve got to say. Has anybody else got anything else to add?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’ve summed it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, then I’ll entertain a motion, if somebody wants to put a motion up.
MR. STROUGH-Don’t we have to do a SEQRA?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, not for a re-zoning request.
MR. LEWIS-Are you sure?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You submitted one, didn’t you?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t believe that we were asked to do one. Were we?
MR. STROUGH-We were submitted one.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Town’s going to do the SEQRA at their re-zoning. We weren’t given lead
agency status.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re the lead agency.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, sometimes they give SEQRA to us.
MS. RADNER-The Planning Board is SEQRA Lead Agency.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We are?
MR. MAC EWAN-They want us to do it?
MS. RADNER-Yes. It says under the suggestions, the Planning Board is the SEQRA Lead Agency
for this petition for zone change.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s what I thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it was the Short?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I saw it. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Isn’t it the Long Form?
MRS. MOORE-It’s the Long Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought I just saw it. Okay. Sorry about that.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. PZ 2-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its
adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
STEWART’S ICE CREAM CO., INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, one way or the other?
MOTION TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LI – 1 ACRE TO CR-15
FOR PZ 2-2001 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 27th day of March 2001by the following vote:
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-Is there any support to leaving that tongue, asking if the applicant is willing to
divide the parcel, subdivide the parcel, or are we getting too messy there, Laura?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can we do that later?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s what I was wondering, or can we just add a comment that maybe the
Town Board might want to consider looking at the subdivision of this property into two lots, so that
it can be, the zone along those lots on Big Bay Road be consistent with the Light Industrial that’s
already there?
MRS. MOORE-The Board, if consensus is there for making the parcel split zone, you can request
that, versus asking the Board to subdivide the property is not, I don’t believe that’s.
MR. STROUGH-Can we do a split zone on one parcel?
MRS. MOORE-I wouldn’t recommend it.
MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t either, but.
MRS. MOORE-If the Board feels that way.
MR. STROUGH-Let me see how the Board feels.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. We’re in the middle of a vote here. I mean, you just can’t stop
the ball rolling in the middle of a vote.
MR. STROUGH-I just want to see if we should add as a condition or just a comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you have a motion up, right in front of you, that we’re casting votes on. You
can’t withdraw it. We’re voting on it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s why I was asking the question.
MS. RADNER-You can always vote against it if you don’t feel you can support it because of that
piece, and if the rest of the Board joins you, then perhaps the applicant could consider subdividing
his land, but if you want him to subdivide it, then you’ve got to go through additional steps. If you
want him to split zone it, your Planning Staff is telling you that’s a very bad idea, and especially when
you’re talking about a little strip like that, it probably is a very bad idea, from a Planning point.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t have a problem. All right, well, in my mind, it’s a worse idea to allow
that strip to allow that strip to be re-zoned Highway Commercial, which disrupts the flow of Light
Industrial in that immediate area.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not Highway Commercial. The applicant is for CR-15. It’s not Highway
Commercial.
MR. LEWIS-Mr. Chairman, can I add something, or shall I stop talking?
MR. MAC EWAN-I really would to get us through our vote here. Procedurally, this is off where
we’re supposed to be going.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I’m going to say, yes, and let it go, but you know the way I feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. So note the concerns, suggestions, and the ideas placed upon you
for design, should you come back and see us for a site plan.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you. I heard that clearly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Loud and clear.
MR. LEWIS-May I ask the Planning Board a question? I don’t know what our intention is on that
long part of the flag pole, if you will, you know, that long piece down there, but this gentlemen over
here who owns the very last piece, if, at his expense, he wants to subdivide, we would sell that off at
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
a minimal amount of money, so that he wouldn’t be impacted. In addition to which, if there’s a way
to keep things simple, we run the other way when things get complicated, okay, but, A, we have no
intent to develop anything on that long strip.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t really think you could if you wanted to.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, so, option one is to offer lands, again, at a nominal amount, to the property
owners, so they have nothing behind them. Unless it gets complicated, and then it’ll sit there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, at this point, our suggestion would be to sit down with the property
owner, sit down with Staff, I would encourage you to do that and get some direction.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, I’ll do that first.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because maybe what you need to do is when you approach the Town Board with
this application, that you can have some direction or they can give you some direction at that point.
MR. LEWIS-That’s a good idea. So, what we would like to do is something that is a benefit to the
Town and hopefully the residents, also, just as a gesture of what might be called good will.
MRS. MOORE-Since your discussion tonight is a recommendation, and that final action comes from
the Town Board, that is something, again, that should be brought to the Town Board for the final
action.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I just told him.
MRS. MOORE-You did? I’m sorry. So, there’s not a problem for you to come and talk with Staff,
and definitely talk with the neighbors within that area, to determine that that’s what you’re going to
do.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. I would be guided first by the Staff’s recommendation with their understanding
our great desire for a lack of complexity in all areas for the rest of my life, on all things. Thank you
very much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We all do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FW 1-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED HOWARD R.
CRANNELL PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: HAVILAND
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK ADJACENT TO A DESIGNATED
WETLAND – GF-19. FILL WITHIN 100 FEET OF ADJACENT WETLAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DEC
PERMIT 5-5234-0043/00001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 54-5-8
LOT SIZE: 13.6 ACRES SECTION: CHAPTER 94
HOWARD CRANNELL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Staff notes, Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FW 1-2001, Howard R. Crannell, Meeting Date: March
27, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes to fill a 12,000 square foot area for the construction of two single family
dwellings. The filled area is adjacent to a NYSDEC wetland and within the Halfway Brook
watershed. The applicant has received a NYSDEC permit to the fill the area. The filling of an area
adjacent to a wetland requires a Freshwater Wetlands Permit review by the Planning Board.
Project Analysis (Chapter 94 and Section 179-38)
The applicant has met with the NYSDEC and has been provided a permit outlining the fill area.
(1) The application purpose: The applicant intends to fill enough area of the property to accommodate
two single family homes, two septic systems, two wells, and access to the homes.
(2) Character and extent of the proposed regulated activity: The NYSDEC has permitted the
applicant to fill approximately 12,000 square feet or less of land for the developments.
(3) Detailed description of the regulated activity: The NYSDC permit indicates that fill material
is limited to soil and gravel.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
(4) A map showing the area of freshwater wetland or adjacent area directly affected with the
location of the proposed regulated activity thereon: The applicant has submitted a survey map
and a drawing showing the location of the fill and the wetland boundary
(5) A deed or other legal description describing the subject property: Staff will request a deed
from the applicant.
(6) Additional information: The applicant has applied for a two-lot administrative review that is
currently being evaluated.
(7) The application shall be accompanied by a list of the names of the owners of record
which relate to any land within or within one hundred (100) feet of the boundary of the
property on which the proposed regulated activity will be located: Staff has provided a map
of the area and neighbors within 100 feet of the activity.
(8) The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter: The activity
is occurring on 12,000 square feet of land. The parcel is 13.6+/- acres and includes a portion of
Halfway Brook. The location of the filling and construction of homes within the limits of the
NYSDEC permit promotes the protection of the wetland area.
(9) The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations applicable in
the town pursuant to § 24-0903 of Article 24 of the State Environmental Conservation
Law: The portion of Article 24 was reviewed and determined to be consistent. The applicant has
received a NYSDEC permit that provides guidelines to the development.
(10) The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare: The
location of the wells and septic system is adequate distance from the neighbors as set forth by NYSDOH
(11) The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary: The applicant proposes two
family dwellings in the Suburban Residential zone. The request is reasonable given the amount of acres
associated with the land (13 +/- acres). The applicant indicates the project is necessary to develop the
lot for home(s).
(12) There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site, which is
not a freshwater, wetland or adjacent area: The applicant’s property is part of a NYSDEC
wetland redistricting project. Staff spoke with Al Koechlein of NYSDEC, he indicated that this
wetland may be reduced in this area. The redistricting is at the beginning stages of notification to the
Town.
Site Overview
The proposed buildings are to be located outside of the fresh water wetland. The permit information
shows two separate driveways. The NYSDEC permit outlines the erosion control methods to be
used during the filling. The plans do not show building elevations or stormwater control measures
such as eave trenches or gutters. Since the project site is in an area of frequent flooding a Flood
Prevention Permit will need to be completed with the building permit application.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant is subject to the following conditions as part of Chapter 94 of the Ordinance.
(1) The agency shall have the right to inspect the project from time to time.
(2) The permit shall expire on a date certain.
(3) The permit holder shall notify the agency of the date on which project construction is to
begin, at least five (5) days in advance of such date.
(4) The agency's permit shall be prominently displayed at the project site during the
undertaking of the activities authorized by the permit.
The applicant has met with the Building Department to review the development of the parcel for
two homes. The applicant will need to provide elevation information at the time of Building permit
that shows the existing grade of the lots and the proposed grade of the finished slab, and septic areas.
The Building Department indicated the development should be above the 293 foot Flood Elevation.
Staff is reviewing the two-lot administrative proposal. The subdivision is being evaluated to
determine if there is enough developable property as defined by the Subdivision Regulations on
Density for two homes.
Suggestions
If the Board grants approval to the proposed project this does not guarantee two buildable lots.”
MRS. MOORE-I spoke with Mr. Crannell on the phone today, and I think he has additional
information that will provide assistance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Mr. Crannell, say what you have to say.
MR. CRANNELL-I’ve been at this project now for almost two and a half years. I’ve been gathering
information. My survey’s in place. I’ve talked to the Building Inspector. I know what I have to do
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
as far as putting a benchmark on the property. Apparently, I’m the only one in the Town that’s ever
attempted to build in a Zone Four Floodplain, and, basically, I feel I know what I’m doing. If you
have questions, I feel I have the answers.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-All right, now, Mr. Crannell, this whole thing is your lot.
MR. CRANNELL-Yes, it is.
MR. STROUGH-And you’re taking the mid section.
MR. CRANNELL-I’m taking the dry section. The rest of that lot is wetland.
MR. STROUGH-And not buildable.
MR. CRANNELL-Not buildable, nothing can be done with it.
MR. STROUGH-And you’ve already got DEC’s approval to bring in approximately 12,000 square
feet of?
MR. CRANNELL-No, that’s a misprint.
MR. STROUGH-You’re working on that approval?
MR. CRANNELL-No. It’s 12,000 cubic yards.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a lot.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s different. This says square feet.
MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I meant to make that amendment, that it’s cubic yards and not square
feet.
MR. STROUGH-All right, fine. Okay.
MR. CRANNELL-Big difference.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, there is a big difference, but you’ve got the DEC’s approval to do this.
MR. CRANNELL-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-They know this is a floodplain. The rest of your property has to remain as it is
because it’s a floodplain.
MR. CRANNELL-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the reason why it’s in front of us is because if you’re going to fill within
100 feet of an adjusted wetland, it requires our review.
MR. CRANNELL-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I looked it over. We were there at the site plan. It looks like, to me,
the impact will be rather minimal, and yet at the same time allow you to do something with a big
stretch of property you have there, although (lost words) at a minimum.
MR. CRANNELL-It’s three acres of dry land.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. CRANNELL-Guaranteed.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to have about, what, an acre and a half per lot, which is a good
sized lot, and the only thing is that, how about on the back of the lot? The only concern I would
have it stormwater runoff going into the wetland area. Is there any way you can contain that on site?
MR. CRANNELL-Stormwater, normally, as it stands right now, really doesn’t affect that part,
because it normally, the high land, it rolls toward the road.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-The road. So it already has, storm drainage is away from the wetland?
MR. CRANNELL-There’s not a puddle on the property right now.
MR. STROUGH-Because I don’t have a contour map to work with. All right. Well, I wouldn’t
mind getting verification of that. Otherwise, I don’t have any problem, and if that is, well, wait a
minute, I do have, well, if it does, in fact, run toward the road, and you’re going to keep that gentle
terrain, design.
MR. CRANNELL-Yes, I have to.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t have a problem.
MR. CRANNELL-That’s part of my DEC specification.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any specific questions. I mean, John kind of hit on the
comments that I would have made regarding runoff and some control measures such as trenches or
gutters. It does say in the Staff Notes, though, that if we were to grant approval, that it does not
guarantee that you have two buildable lots, you know, and you’d have to come back for site plan
review.
MRS. MOORE-I’m not saying that it needs to come back for site plan review, and I will provide you
that the information that he’s provided about the amount of wetlands on the property, and I think he
provided John with the information of how much buildable area was left, we will utilize that number,
and can determine the density. Right now, based on what he’s provided us with, that leaves at least
almost three acres to be divided into two lots for buildable area. So, that clarifies what I was looking
for in the density information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-That there’s a possibility, without this information, I would say that there may be a
concern about having two buildable lots, but with this information, I would say there’s, the
probability is it’s possible that there are two building lots on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t really remember having any kind of application like this, in the
six years I’ve been on the Board, but maybe one slipped by me. I see that, this is just a little joke
here, but the Corps of Engineers said the fact that you’re not going to do any dredging, that you’re
okay.
MR. CRANNELL-I’ve had everybody, everybody on that piece of property, including the District
Regional Director at Ray Brook. I’ve had no negatives, and most of that area is going to be re-done,
as far as wetlands go, because it has been determined that some of it is not wetland, but high water
table, and I was told by ENCON if I wanted to spend the money, and if it meant that much to me,
that they would come down again and re-do the line and make it, the buildable land, larger. I have
no need for that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And no cellars?
MR. CRANNELL-No, can’t have it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. I mean, you certainly have all your permits. Somebody’s done
their homework.
MR. CRANNELL-Two years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two years?
MR. MAC EWAN-You and Mr. Vollaro ought to get together. Your turn, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Cathy answered one of my questions. This will be slab on grade, on the
two lots?
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. CRANNELL-It has to be 18 inches above the centerline of Haviland Road. That’s my garage
floor.
MR. VOLLARO-There’ll be no basements in these buildings?
MR. CRANNELL-I can’t have it.
MR. VOLLARO-Can’t have the basements, and you’re bringing in 12,000 cubic yards of fill?
MR. CRANNELL-I have permission to bring in 12,000.
MR. VOLLARO-Twelve thousand cubic yards of fill.
MR. CRANNELL-My estimates are right, at the present time, building is running between 1800 and
22. So that’s a big difference, each.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, on that piece of dry land that you talk about, where you’re going to do this
development in the future, do you know what the depth to groundwater is there?
MR. CRANNELL-Yes, I do. It’s nine inches of top, knotting at 15, somewhere around there. It’s in
that package.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I saw the information from the.
MR. CRANNELL-But when I bring in two feet of fill, that’s going to be a raised system.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize, the septic systems in here are going to be raised bed systems.
MR. CRANNELL-Yes. I mean, raising the land is going to create the raise.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that. I’ve been informed by Staff that this is really a building
inspector’s purview and area of concern, and not something the Planning Board should be concerned
with. However, having said that, I just want, for your benefit, not for mine, there’s a Code, a Sewer
Code in the Town. It’s called 136, and 136-10 says there must be at least two feet of natural
occurring soil.
MR. CRANNELL-There is.
MR. VOLLARO-Over the impervious layer of seasonally high groundwater.
MR. CRANNELL-That’s what there is. Knotting figures down 24 inches, right on the button.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re saying that you meet the?
MR. CRANNELL-I meet the Code. It does perc.
MR. VOLLARO-Not percolation, that there’ll be.
MR. CRANNELL-But I do meet that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I’m, so long as you know that there’s a 136 Sewer Code you
have to meet and you’re aware of it, and you work with the Town building inspector, that’s
something that you just should be aware of, and that’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Are you selling these lots?
MR. CRANNELL-No, I’m not. They’re not for sale.
MR. METIVIER-And you’re, the definition of an A-4 Floodplain is what?
MR. CRANNELL-It’s designated by my survey map. You have the map in front of you. Each
degree, if you go down Haviland Road, gives an elevation.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 293.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. CRANNELL-I’m probably at 293, but as you get, it’s 18 inches where I set. I’m not an
engineer, but I have to build 18 inches above Haviland Road. If you were to receive a project that
was on the corner of Haviland and Ridge, they would have to build 24 inches.
MR. METIVIER-And if you go up 24 inches you’ll be above the floodplain?
MR. CRANNELL-Above the floodplain.
MR. METIVIER-In what kind of storm, what kind of storm are you referring to, a 50 year, 100 year,
any storm?
MR. CRANNELL-A 100.
MR. METIVIER-One hundred?
MR. CRANNELL-One hundred. To the best of my knowledge, it has never flooded.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. Some controversy with the Board, is that an otter or a beaver that runs
around in the back yard?
MR. MAC EWAN-That was my question. My eyes didn’t deceive me.
MR. METIVIER-When we were looking at this the other day, there was an animal in the back, and I
seem to think that it’s a beaver, but some other people said it was an otter.
MR. CRANNELL-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Do you have any idea?
MR. CRANNELL-Yes, I do. Right now, the deer are all sleeping. The Fischer is sleeping in the
culvert that runs between Glenn Batease’s property and mine. There’s four otters and a family of
beavers. Take your pick. My back yard is the most beautiful view that you’ve ever seen in your life,
and the best part about it, anybody in this room could have bought that property because it was sold
at a Warren County tax sale. Case closed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two years of a headache.
MR. CRANNELL-And six (lost words).
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’ve got four beavers and four otters?
MR. CRANNELL-No, no, minimum.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Minimum?
MR. METIVIER-We watched this one for a while and he looked pretty happy. So he was having a
good time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They fill in the wetlands, then where are they going to live? There’s more
back there.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing is open. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CURT MADISON
MR. MADISON-Hi. My name is Curt Madison, and I live at 344 Haviland Road, which borders on
the west boundary of Mr. Crannell’s property. In 1990, I went through subdivision to get the
building lots that I wanted, and telling Howard the long time that it takes to go through the permit
process and everything. At that point, I was told that I was going to be the last one on the right side
of the road headed toward Ridge Road, and that there was no more building on that side of the road
because of the wetlands. That was told to me by the Town Board, the Planning Board, and
ENCON. The reason I wanted that property was because there was an old AT&T line that went
through Howard’s property and my property, and I was wanting that property so I could have the
roadway and re-do the bridge so I could get access to the back of my property. Howard jumped me
on it and he bought the property ahead of me. I’ve since called him, quite a few times, and have tried
to work things with him that if he was going through subdivision, that instead of a two lot
subdivision, that he make it a three lot subdivision, and sell me where the easement is, so I could use
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
that as the roadway, to put a bridge in, to get out back. So my only concern is that, tonight, this
doesn’t have anything to do with the wetland permit, but in the overall process, that if it does go
through subdivision, that that concern be addressed. There are other ways that I can get across the
stream, by using a different roadway, but this roadway that was there would cause less of an
environment disruption if I used that, and that it’s 50 feet off my property, and just as soon as you
get across the stream, then you’re on my property anyway. So, basically, I would support Howard, as
far as him building the houses there. He’s the one that’s going to have to worry about if it gets
flooded or not, but, in the overall part of it, if this does go through subdivision, I would like to
recommend, instead of a two lot, it be a three lot, and have that one parcel divided off. That would
be Howard’s choice, but it would still have to go through subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-If he decided to go that route, and if he ever decided to subdivide the property, I
mean, the Planning Board or the Town can’t dictate to any landowner how they divide up their
property.
MR. MADISON-Exactly. Yes, I understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be between you and Mr. Crannell.
MR. MADISON-But, if he wants to build two houses, he has to go through subdivision anyway.
He’s got one lot now.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the issue is.
MRS. MOORE-Currently, based on the information provided, he’s allowed to submit for a two lot
administrative review, and that’s currently under review. So, right now, it’s not scheduled to go
through a Planning Board subdivision review, such as yours did. Just a brief history on the
subdivision that he’s indicating was that previously, there’s a lot that’s landlocked, I believe, does not
have access to a road that he’s discussing, and if Howard Crannell provided some type of access to
that property, whether it be by deeded easement or by a lot line adjustment, or by further
subdividing, those are all options Mr. Crannell, we discussed those items. Because that was a
concern when he first brought in the application. We looked at the property surrounding his
property, and came up with the subdivision that was adjacent to him that had no, had a lot that had
no frontage. So we did discuss that.
MR. MADISON-Those lots were planned out because the back parcels of those properties were to
be left undeveloped.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. MADISON-And that was all agreed through the subdivision, through the Planning Board,
through the Town Board. I still have an active permit through the Town and through ENCON to
put a bridge in and gain access to the back of those properties, and that is still going ahead, but where
I put the bridge is, I mean, if Howard can only subdivide it in two, that’s no problem. I’d go along
with Plan B, but if he can get that parcel subdivided, if he has to go through subdivision, then I
would entertain that idea to have him go that route. If not, that’s no problem. I’ll work something
out on my own. That’s no problem.
MR. METIVIER-Which house are you?
MR. MADISON-The log home.
MR. METIVIER-The log, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Long or Short?
MR. MAC EWAN-Short.
MRS. MOORE-The Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HOWARD R. CRANNELL, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FW 1-2001 HOWARD
R. CRANNELL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 1-2001,
Howard Crannell. Applicant proposes construction of two single family dwellings and associated site
work adjacent to a designated wetland, GF-19. Fill within 100 feet of adjacent wetland requires
Planning Board review and approval, Tax Map No. 54-5-8. Cross Reference DEC Permit 5-5234-
00437/00001, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 2/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 03/23/01;
3/27/01 Staff Notes
3/20/01 Notice of Public Hearing
3/14/01 Warren Co. Planning Board - Approved
3/7/01 Meeting Notice w/project ID notice attached
Undated Map prepared by Staff of properties within 100 feet w/property owner list attached
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/27/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with Chapter 94
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury; and
65
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved and is subject to the following condition:
1. That the stormwater runoff after build be contained on site or drained toward
Haviland Road.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. CRANNELL-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 8-2001 TYPE II THE MC KERNON GROUP/G. HATHAWAY
PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID & CLAUDIA MONTANA ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION:
19 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF A MUDROOM TO
EAST SIDE OF BUILDING, A SUNROOM WITH FULL BASEMENT UNDER, A
COVERED PORCH AND AN OPEN DECK, EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO TO BE
REPLACED WITH PAVERS. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 13-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-6
LOT SIZE: 6.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
GERARD HATHAWAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-2001, The McKernon Group/G. Hathaway, Meeting Date: March
27, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes alterations and expansion of a single family dwelling on Lake George. The
improvements include a mudroom (10’ x 12’8”) within the Town of Queensbury.
Project Analysis
Site Overview
The majority of the applicant’s home is located in the Town of Lake George. The existing
portion of building within the Town of Queensbury does not meet the required setbacks of
the zone and is a non-conforming structure. The proposed mudroom addition meets the
required setbacks and is subject to site plan review.
The applicant’s site development data sheet provides information on the mudroom with the
associated overhangs. The overhang information is not necessary to the project
development. Setback distances are not measured from the overhangs. The applicant’s
driveway location does not change due to the project. The plans indicate the stormwater will
be accommodated on site. The applicant’s water supply is taken from the Lake. The septic
system was installed in 1990 and was designed for five bedrooms. There is no new
landscaping proposed.
Areas of Concern or Importance
66
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
The parcel is located in Neighborhood one of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The
proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s expansion is less than
the 22% allowed for the parcel and the existing septic system meets the code requirements.”
MRS. MOORE-I’ll just highlight that the property is within the Town of Queensbury and in the
Town of Lake George, and only a small portion of this project is located in the Town of
Queensbury, which is the mud room addition. Under the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, this project is
located in Neighborhood One, and the project is consistent where the expansion is less than 22%,
and the parcel meets the existing septic system code requirements.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen.
MR. HATHAWAY-Hello.
DAVE MONTANA
MR. MONTANA-Hello.
MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize for the long wait. The floor is yours. Please identify yourselves for
the record.
MR. HATHAWAY-Okay. I’m Gerard Hathaway from The McKernon Group, and this is Dave
Montana, owner of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, the floor is yours.
MR. HATHAWAY-Okay. Well, we’ve already been through the Town of Lake George and they
have given conditional approval of the project, and the conditions that they had, and of course the
project was as described by Laura, looking at adding a sunroom, which is all in the Town of Lake
George, and a mud room, which is all in the Town of Queensbury. So there are no new bedrooms
added to the project, and the sunroom also includes a covered portion of porch and an open portion
of deck. The Town of Lake George just said that it was approved with conditions, and their
comments and conditions were that prior to the issue of Land Use and Development Permit, a new
map and deed, detailing a new boundary line, should be submitted. Dave had come earlier and
gotten approval from the Town of Queensbury to buy some property from his neighbor to increase
the size of the lot, and they’re going soon to the Town of Lake George to buy another small piece
that’s in the Town of Lake George, and, really, the only significance that buying the new property has
is that the, in Lake George, we were a hair under meeting their area, square foot area calculations,
which are different than yours, and if the property purchases weren’t approved, Dave was prepared
to demolish a 200 square foot concrete patio on the Lake George side of the house, but Lake George
has agreed that, with the purchase already approved, of the property in Queensbury, that’s not going
to be necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-It gets confusing, doesn’t it?
MR. HATHAWAY-Yes, it does, and so to continue on, they were saying a new map detailing the
new boundary lines be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Office, and that we also agree to
submit septic plans to the Consolidated Board of Health in their Town, for review, and what the
Planning Officer told me there, all they wanted to do was wait and see what your reaction was to the
septic system, since that’s got to be looked at for any project, even though there are no bedrooms
added. They wanted to see your reaction to the septic system, which is in Queensbury, and further
we should obtain either a No County Impact or approval from Warren County, and we did get
approval from Warren County on the 14.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re only here because the Town of Lake George asked you to come?
MR. HATHAWAY-Well, the fact that a little bit of the building of the main house that’s in
Queensbury also is a little bit short, the existing building, the setback is 18, 7 instead of 20 feet, and
because we’ve got that nonconforming situation within 100 feet of the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because that’s what I understood before. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Do you want to entertain questions? Christopher, how about we start
with you? It’s your turn.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the only question I had. My understanding was that you needed site
plan review because it was an existing nonconforming structure. It didn’t meet the setback
requirements. So any addition would require site plan review. I didn’t have any problems with it or
any questions. I’m sure John will jump ahead and ask questions about stormwater runoff. I don’t
67
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
recall if you have gutters on the roofline. It shows some in the photographs that were attached, but
do you currently have drywells and gutters to collect stormwater runoff from the building?
MR. MONTANA-We have gutters on certain locations.
MR. HATHAWAY-On the house, on the living room and the front and the back of the house, it
runs the water to the north and away from the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The concern would be to run any stormwater runoff away from the lake.
MR. HATHAWAY-Well, what we were looking at, if you look on that front site plan, is that existing
stormwater runoff really follows a route that starts fairly close to the house in back, and there’s a
swale that goes around to the south end, and that really won’t be changed at all, and all we’re doing,
when we come out with the mud room, we’ll actually push the swale back up the hill a little bit, but,
essentially, the place the water ends up, going around the end of the house, will be the same, because
the location where the sunroom and porch portion are being added are really on a higher portion of
ground already, and the stormwater follows a path that goes to a natural swale between the
properties.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether we can give you an answer on the septic system that Lake
George is looking for, because I, myself, don’t know when I should comment on septic systems and
when I should not. It seems to be there is some degree of confusion in my mind. I’m not speaking
for any other Board member, now, but me, as to when a Planning Board member talks to septic tank
or leach field performance or installation. So, that’s, for the record, I don’t know when we’re
supposed to comment and when we’re not. Now, I think that the fact that all I can see is you’re
doing the stoop and the proposed mud room. I have no comments on this application, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No, I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Hathaway, are you buying the property from Mr. Montana?
MR. HATHAWAY-No. I’m the architect with the McKernon Group who’s done the design and
helping them get it through the process.
MR. STROUGH-And Mr. Montana is the owner, and who’s McKernon?
MR. HATHAWAY-The McKernon Group.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, the only comment that I have was the septic situation concerns,
especially with the apartment over the garage. What’s underneath the garage?
MR. MONTANA-When we, we built the garage at the same time that I decided to upgrade and go to
a new septic system. The Town of Queensbury, I went to them and I asked them if I sized the septic
system right could I have, you know, a bathroom over the garage, and they said absolutely, and we
sized the system. I had an engineer, Ray Irish, Queensbury person, designed the whole thing, and it’s
more than adequate for.
MR. STROUGH-So the Town has a copy of your septic design?
MR. MONTANA-It’s here.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, there’s a lot going on here tonight, and there’s just garage space under
the apartment, it’s just used for parking cars?
MR. MONTANA-Yes, sir, and there’s no water or anything going to be in the mud room, no
washer, no dryer. There is no water or anything that’s going in the sunroom at all.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. STROUGH-Are you familiar with the Lake George Stormwater Plan?
MR. HATHAWAY-Somewhat. I had to, to put this information through. Are there particular?
MR. STROUGH-Well, what we’re trying to do is keep the nitrogen’s and the phosphates from the
fertilizers that are used on the lawns from dumping into the lake. What we’d like to see, prior to its
runoff into the lake, a catch basin, an infiltration basin, a bio retention system, even a grass swale, just
to prevent flooding from going into the lake. Because not only does it pick up the fertilization
contaminants, it picks up other things as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re suggesting all this for a sunroom, or for a?
MR. STROUGH-Every opportunity I get. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking a mud room here, John.
MR. STROUGH-But you’re also in a CEA. So every time you get an opportunity, if you can get the
applicant to make the stormwater situation a little bit better, I think we should, and I’m just making a
request, and you want to get home.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s not that I want to get home. I just, I’m looking at a project, and this, of
all projects, is a very unique project, because half the action’s in a different township.
MR. STROUGH-I know it. I know it, but I think it’s also part of our job to make the applicants
aware of the efforts on behalf of the Town. Why did you make a stormwater report for Lake George
that was that thick if you don’t want to abide by it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, do you know what his conditions of approval were with Lake George?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you know they didn’t make that part of the approval?
MR. STROUGH-Well, your downspouts for your gutter systems, let’s start there. Are they going
into wet wells?
MR. HATHAWAY-No.
MR. MONTANA-No.
MR. STROUGH-So they’re just going on the surface? We’ve been making people put them in wet
wells. Do you have a problem with that? A wet well, two foot by two foot hole, geotextile lining,
and then stone of some type for drainage purposes.
MR. HATHAWAY-Well, I’d have to, I mean, in theory I wouldn’t have any problem with that, but
certainly it would drive up the cost of the project to the owner. We are improving the swale around
the back of the house, as part of the project. There will be some perforated pipe actually put in
underneath the swale and some gravel cover to be able to help keep his basement a little drier, and
we could probably easily run the downspouts into something that would get them to that area.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you’re already going to put a drainage system in. So if you put your
downspouts into that area, that would even help him with his basement problems.
MR. HATHAWAY-Well, actually, it probably could. Where he’s got these coming off, directed away
from the house at this point, and we could direct it into that system.
MR. MONTANA-I’m not an engineer, but the roof is very small, and the amount of water that
comes off that roof is not a lot, and most of the water that comes down the lot, you know, the road
carries most of the water beyond my house, up on the road and down towards the Motel, and there’s
quite a bit of distance for the water that comes off the gutters to go into the ground before it ever
gets to the lake.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Depending on that soil type that you have there, generally speaking about
30% of it is going to be runoff. If it’s sloped toward the lake, it’s going to get into the lake. Yes, the
rest of it will be infiltration and, or will go to evaporation, but.
MR. HATHAWAY-Well, in essence, the places where he has a gutter system right now are really on
the front and the back parts of the house that are perpendicular to the lake. Because there are
69
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
entrances and places there. In general, it’s got two foot overhangs. So there’s not a problem with
the water being too close to the basement wall. So he doesn’t have gutters on the whole house now.
The south end of the, or the south end of the house doesn’t have a gutter on it. It’s mostly the back
where the entrance is and now we’re actually changing the configuration of the entrance. So there’ll
be a gable where you come in, and that will interrupt that part of the gutter system, and I can see
where we will be able to direct that gutter off to the areas where our swale is, which now, at least for
the portion back around the back of the house, will have a varied pipe and some gravel to be able to
disperse that underground a little bit better before it gets around the end, and starts toward the lake.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, where, specifically, are you talking about wanting to do this on the
property? For the whole house or are you talking about just this mud room addition?
MR. STROUGH-Well, he said that the gutters that exist now can be directed toward the drainage
system they’re putting in where the existing swale is.
MR. MONTANA-Yes, but the more I think about it, the new mud room is going to be where the
gutter is now. I mean, we might not even need to have a gutter when we build this new mud room.
Because we’re going to have an overhang. I mean, the only reason the gutter’s there is so you don’t
drown when you go in the house.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we have to keep in mind, the impact we’re having in our review is to that
mud room. Ninety-eight percent of that house sits in the Town of Lake George, and I don’t think
we have the legal authority to put conditions of approval for a site plan that affects property in
another Township. Do we?
MS. RADNER-That’s an interesting question, and I don’t think I have the answer to that off the top
of my head. You are allowed to place reasonable conditions. Could you condition that they were
required to get some sort of an approval from Lake George and force Lake George to do it? No,
obviously not, but if the Lake George portion of the property is going to impact Queensbury,
arguably, yes, but I think it’s the kind of thing that would take a lot more legal research than is
probably warranted for this mud room.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That makes sense.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, let me leave it as this, okay, I guess, for this application, is that Mr.
Hathaway is going to be in charge of this project, and you know my concern.
MR. HATHAWAY-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-And so, without me conditioning anything, I think it’s appropriate to just keep
stormwater on site as much as possible. Okay. Well, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, don’t get me wrong, I’d probably be hanging right there with you on this,
except that we’ve got two different municipalities we’re dealing with here, and that’s my concern.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I try for everything I can get, Craig.
MR. HATHAWAY-Actually, in the Town of Queensbury is where the work on stormwater is going
to be, because that’s also where water that comes downhill would come up against the house, if there
weren’t a swale created there, and already some, we’re going to do some piping in the back to help
correct that situation and get the stormwater down into the ground, and certainly, even the direction
of the pipe that you see in the picture would be directed back toward that swale, where that drainage
is going to be. We hadn’t intended on doing anything down in front of the building, because it’s
pretty much lawn going out through, that heads down toward the lake, and it seems to drain pretty
well, you know, as it is, it seems to, I don’t think you’ve got, I haven’t seen any situation where you’d
develop any kind of running or fast runoff that would indicate that a lot of water is going into the
lake.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, but it is cumulative.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did I understand you correctly to say that you said that most of the mediation
that’s going to take place on this property to correct your stormwater runoff is in the Town of
Queensbury?
MR. HATHAWAY-Is in the Town of Queensbury, and it’s, you know, the swale around the back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t you supply us with any drawings or diagrams to show that?
70
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
MR. HATHAWAY-Well, we do indicate that we’ve got an altered swale, and actually, recently, the
owner, since we started the process and did these drawings, asked us if, told us that he would like to
see some drainage piping put in the bottom of that swale.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Anything else?
MR. STROUGH-No, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Everybody all set? Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. MONTANA-No, sir.
MR. HATHAWAY-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Would someone like to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2001 THE MC KERNON GROUP/G.
HATHAWAY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony
Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 8-2001, The McKernon Group
for David & Claudia Montana for the addition of a mudroom to east side of building, a sunroom
with full basement under, a covered porch and an open deck, existing concrete patio to be replaced
with pavers. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review
and approval. Cross Reference: AV 13-2001. Tax Map No. 1-1-6. 6.46 acres, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 2/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 03/23/01;
3/27/01 Staff Notes
3/20/01 Notice of Public Hearing
3/14/01 Warren Co. Planning Board - Approve
3/7/01 Meeting Notice w/project ID notification attached
2/21/01 ZBA resolution
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/27/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
71
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/27/01)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. I apologize for the long wait and thanks for your patience.
MR. HATHAWAY-You guys are to be commended for sitting here yourselves. I was on a Planning
Board in a small town years ago, and it was nothing like this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Site visits the 14 before Easter on a Saturday? Planning Board is when, the
th
17 and 24?
thth
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, for me, it’s rather difficult. I mean, daylight savings time starts
this week. So we can conceivably go back to Thursdays, if everybody wants to, but it’s hard for me.
I don’t get into Glens Falls until six o’clock.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then we’ll do Saturday. Saturday nine o’clock is fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ve got the 17 and the 24. So we’ve got to do is the 14.
ththth
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Before Easter. All right. Now I won’t be here the 17.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I asked Pam this morning, left her a voice mail message, asked her to
supply me with a list of people who were going to be attending the agenda meetings. I didn’t get any
e-mail from her. I’m guessing you didn’t bring a list with you.
MRS. MOORE-No, I did not.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, therefore, I don’t know who’s next in turn. I do believe it’s Tony.
MR. METIVIER-It is.
MR. MAC EWAN-And Tony needs to have ample notice reminder.
MRS. MOORE-It’s this Friday.
MR. METIVIER-What time?
MRS. MOORE-At 10 a.m.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
72